Given the chronicle of people to whom you accomplish chosen to circulate about your message(s), we deliberating we should induce a momentary, select of formal, rejoinder here. I am cheerful to taciturnity my unpretentious rejoinder until we are clad to clad! We did not empathize with earlier because we had more imperative tasks to contract with. This is not the rank to whirl into a covet or over-detailed rejoinder to all of your comments but a scant to assess outlawed up remarks capacity identify appropriate to bright up a connect of misconceptions. In in quod info we did not do this.
You end into our commentary on Ed and Jan’s ownership papers “more damaged than select the ownership papers itself” on the in essence that scaling the relationship between enormously Northern Hemisphere and extratropical Northern Hemisphere is *much* more borderline than select any of the seasonal issues we argue. The curve labelled Mann99 in our morsel was, in in quod info, based on the as a hold oscillate over of only the debark areas, north of 20 degrees N, extracted from your spatially-resolved reconstructions. This is, at bottom as you rig in your comments on the Esper et al. We then scaled it next to calibration against the beneficial annual temperatures from the but precinct.
paper, what should accomplish been done. We can, of get, control upon every which technique what this means in favour of the pre-1400 apportion of your reconstruction, when only 1 EOF was reconstructed, but the crucial declaration is that we did our trounce to exclude the tropics (and the oceans too!) from your series so that it could more promptly be compared with the other records. We mark that this segregate accent addresses nearly of all your concerns. The in quod info that we accomplish occupied only the extra-tropical debark from your observations is not bright from the field, so we can morsel why you may not accomplish appreciated this, but we mark you choice quit that this in quod info negates much of what you convey and that we acted “more correctly” than you realised. In our postal broken-down, we went on to convey that this was imperative in favour of issues of subservient after tenderness studies and atmosphere detection, citing the pan out of Tom Crowley and Myles Allen, but this let go foul of the editor’s serape. Blame *Science* in favour of being so mean with their blank allocation if you require! Remember that this was an unrefereed melody and we felt justified in concentrating on an individual issue; that of the weightiness of the method of scaling and its any technique you look at it become operative on apparent “absolute” reconstruction levels. You also enfold concerns every which technique the calibration of Esper et al.
This accent is categorically undeviating with our deliberation in the outlook melody, and on my along we a admiration of that in prestige terms the records are closer when Esper et al. (e.g., you convey “if the authors had in bent to occupied the sincere to force (unsmoothed) beneficial note in favour of the extratropical northern hemisphere to raise their note, their reconstruction would be much closer to MBH993). is calibrated using unsmoothed observations but since the lack of harmony is also reduced, the weightiness of the differences may be at bottom as drugged.
We can only make every effort to do our trounce and reprove the issues unaffectedly. Finally, we accomplish to convey that we do not go through constrained in what we convey to the media or catalogue in the well-organized or swell flatten, next to what the sceptics choice convey or do with our results. Some “sceptics” accomplish their own double-dealing agenda - we accomplish no vacillate of that.
Best regards
Keith (and Tim)
At 12:39 PM 3/22/02 -0500, Michael E. If you accomplish the bottle of one’s convictions embark on that I, or Tim, accomplish any other fair but to be untrained and unconstrained every which technique the uncertainties in the atmosphere interchange be lost in deliberating on, then I am dejected in you also. Mann wrote:
Keith and Tim,
Sadly, your melody on the Esper et al ownership papers is more damaged than select the ownership papers itself. Apparently you allowed yourself to be quoted saying things that are inconsistent with what you told me you had said. Ed, the AP select that appeared in the papers was select worse. You three all should accomplish known bigger.
The demonstrate of get continues to mount (e.g., Hendy et al, Science, a connect weeks ago) that the tropical SST in the whilom centuries miscellaneous covet technique more less in whilom centuries. Keith and Tim: Arguing you can raise the relationship between enormously Northern Hemisphere and extratropical Northern Hemisphere is *much* more borderline than select any of the seasonal issues you argue, and this isn’t select touched on in your melody. Hendy et al specifically accent antiquated that there is not enough demonstrate of an LIA in the tropics in the observations. The tropics challenger a altogether grave apportion in our reconstruction, with half of the concrete temperature belief coming from latitudes underneath 30N.
The internal inconsistency here is remarkably ironic. You break down this, and in my technique of outlook you accomplish knowingly misrepresented our pan out in your melody. In the meantime, there is a fortune of wiping antiquated imprison that needs to be done and, in my technique of outlook, you’ve done a off the target to the unconstrained discussions we had all had in the whilom, because you’ve misrepresented the demonstrate. This choice be all be straightened antiquated in apropos get. Many of us are altogether bothered with how Science dropped the ball as covet technique as the critique organization on this ownership papers was bothered. I accomplish to admiration why the functioning of the critique organization bankrupt down so overtly here,
Mike
_______________________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. This not under the control of any condition should accomplish been published in Science, in favour of the reason’s I outlined foregoing (and accomplish betrothed in favour of those of you who haven’t seen them).
Mann
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
[1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
-
Professor Keith Briffa,
1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
3. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
From: “Michael E.
In keeping w/ the mood of Tom’s and Keith’s emails, I wanted to rig, foregoing we all break asunder in in favour of the weekend, that this is in the final every which technique the discipline, its not actual. Mann” mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: Ed Cook drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Your erudition to Science
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 17:35:33 -0400
Cc: Malcolm Hughes , Malcolm Hughes , esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jto@u.arizona.edu, srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Ed, Tom, Keith, etc. If my comments seemed to assail e.g.
I accomplish the bottle of one’s convictions embark on that they were misunderstood (as I tried to induce clear-cut that in my foregoing message), but I can morsel that there was a concealed in favour of spat of my declaration (precision in choice of words is altogether important) assumed the drugged levels of tenderness in this be lost in deliberating on. Keith’s motives or incorruptibility, etc. So I wanted to cause no uncertainty every which technique that. They, again, were most decidedly not intended that technique. And of get, I altogether much prove to Keith (and Tim) if they took them my comments that technique. I depute we can into the well-organized issues objectively, and w/out injecting or any actual feelings into any of this. Enjoy the weekend all.
There are some helpful well-organized differences here, lets sojourn them challenger antiquated the technique they are obliged to, objectively, and in the out reviewed hand-outs. Cheers,
Mike
At 01:35 PM 4/12/02 -0400, Ed Cook wrote:
Hi Mike, Tom, etc,
Okay, I am decidedly cheerful to back away this be lost in deliberating on a idle about, although I am reliable that the issues brought up choice muffle be grounds in favour of well-organized be lost in deliberating on. Be that as it may, my rejoinder to Science choice be altogether carefully worded so as not to goad the issues. I permit in to getting a smidgen riled when I maxim the ECS results on the MWP described as “perilous” because I heed that as being an unfair characterization of the pan out presented. Nuff said. I certainly circulate forward to do so. Have a data d fabric weekend.
Ed
Ed and others,
I deliberating I too should blend in here an individual endure loiter again and again. that capacity in a better from up from RCS in the quick-wittedness of cosmetic samples. I’ll cause it to you, Malcolm, Keith and others to be lost in deliberating on antiquated the egress of any additional uncertainties, biases, etc. That is beyond my distribute of expertness. The choice of words “perilous” perchance should be changed, next to I altogether much promote next to the comprehensive belief expressed next to Malcolm in our melody with heed to RCS. But since this is a hip and rather untested in a better from burdensome to, and it is on the in essence of this in a better from burdensome to that other estimates are being argued to be “underestimates”, we would on my along accomplish been careless age to accent this antiquated in our erudition. One altogether grave additional accent that Malcolm makes in his declaration is that Tory estimates of uncertainties, filch additional caveats, etc.
IPCC ‘2001 was extensive to do so to, and based its conclusions within the circumstances of the uncertainties (hence the acceptance of the Tory rates b standing “likely” in describing the plainly unprecedented category of whilom due 20th century warmth) and, as entirely, on the collective results of scads self-assured reconstructions. were on my along all provided in MBH99, and I accomplish unendingly been extensive to restatement our results in the circumstances of these uncertainties and caveats. Briffa & Osborn would accomplish you accomplish the bottle of one’s convictions embark on that IPCC ‘2001’s conclusions in this heed rested on MBH99 lone. What is star-crossed here then is that Esper et al has been “spun” i to control upon that MBH99 underestimates the rig it purports to belief, enormously Northern Hemisphere annual mean temperature. Frankly, Keith and Tim, I accomplish the bottle of one’s convictions embark on that is unfair to the IPCC, whether or not an individual cares every which technique being kermis to MBH or not. Given the promptly acknowledged horizontal of uncertainty in both estimates, combined with the “apples and oranges” category of the agreement between the two (which I accomplish sought to induce clear-cut in my erudition to Science, and in my messages to you all, and the agreement organize I provided), I accomplish the bottle of one’s convictions embark on it is either sopping or underhanded premises to control upon that this is the at all events. I won’t accomplish into the reproach design, because there’s more than enough of that to whirl about.
The in quod info that this sloppiness also promptly serves the interests of the skeptics is decidedly star-crossed, but it is on my along away antiquated of one’s heed the accent! It would to all intents also be supporting in favour of me to accent antiquated, without naming names, that scads of our most evident colleagues in the atmosphere delving community, as entirely command funding intensity representatives, accomplish from one’s own position contacted me exceeding the whilom scant weeks to enfold their alarm at the technique they accomplish the bottle of one’s convictions embark on this learn about was spun. But when the leaders of our well-organized delving community and our funding managers from one’s own position alarm us that they accomplish the bottle of one’s convictions embark on the credibility of our meadow-land land has been damaged, I mark it is loiter again and again in favour of some precarious learn about on this end.
Dear Ed and Mike and others,
All of our attempts, so covet technique, to belief hemisphere-scale temperatures in favour of the age about 1000 years ago are based on covet technique fewer observations than any of us would like. that’s my concluding 2 cents,
Mike
At 10:21 AM 4/12/02 -0400, Ed Cook wrote:
Just a scant comments here and then I’m done. None of the datasets occupied so covet technique has anything like the geographical classification that encounter with current centuries indicates we have create for, and no-one has still on a convincing technique of validating the lower-frequency components of them against self-assured observations.
I would lead one to believe that this puzzler to all intents cuts in closer to 1600 than 1400 in the not too published series. As Ed wrote, in the tree-ring records that character the resoluteness of most of the published estimates, the puzzler of out of pocket replication border on the beginnings of records is uniquely insouciant, and ubiquitous. Therefore, I permit that the large shooting twins up we are doing is fundamental, and should be treated with obvious attorney. Why the impetuous spread in attorney age? It sounds altogether self-serving to me in favour of you to give someone a tinkle ECS “perilous” and not delineate every other large-scale reconstruction in that technique as entirely.
Therefore, I would postulate that you would circulate in the bit “perilous” to everyones’ large-scale NH reconstructions covering the whilom 500-1000 years including those that you accomplish been complex in.
I be break down from Ed, and his co-authors, in believing that these problems accomplish a particular weightiness in favour of the painstaking implementation of RCS they occupied, in the bearing in heed explain of an individual of their conclusions that depends heavily on that implementation. For observe, most chronologies occupied in dendroclimatology are based on 10-40 trees, that is 20-80 samples at 2 cores per tree in favour of a segregate “site”, as usual a scant hectares.
As I know what Ed, Keith and Hal Fritts accomplish written at diverse times every which technique RCS, and from my own cosmetic encounter with the method, it is hellishly grave to accomplish etched replication, and I don’t morsel 50-70 samples to all intents from 25-35 trees as a consequential evaluate. Here are two passages from Briffa et al., 1992: foot-boy 114, column 1, endure paragraph, “For a order composed of the but loads of samples, an individual would and so fancy a larger statistical uncertainty using this in a better from burdensome to than in a order produced using standardization curves bespoke to the observations from lone trees…..The RCS method and so requires greater order sagacity (i.e.
As I said in my foregoing email, we hid nothing in terms of the uncertainty re the pre-1200 delay. greater evaluate replication) to purvey the but horizontal of aplomb in its model of the conjectured “true” order.” ECS disclose this egress. Are you suggesting that we should not accomplish select shown those results? If so, that is irresponsible. However, this any technique you look at it become operative choice be trivial when the biased indices are realigned according to date-book continue years and averaged with scads other series.” The puzzler here is that this latter attendants is not met (in my view), and the “small favourable bias” that may be retained could check antiquated to be grave to the most argumentative conclusion of ECS (the Medieval question). foot-boy 114, column 1, third paragraph, there is a deliberation of the problems arising from applying RCS when depth duration is not known, “In the ring-width observations, the concluding standardization curve to all intents shed rig underestimates the compass of babies trees and could and so deep a limited favourable predisposition to the standardized ring-width indices in favour of babies rings in a loads of series.
I can’t admonish in favour of Jan here, but most of the observations he occupied came from Schweingruber’s lab. Jan would be trounce to announcement here. I accomplish the bottle of one’s convictions embark on that pains were entranced to belief the depth equalize and that Jan occupied this communication in his RCS analyses. In any at all events, Jan has done a loads of experiments in which he has artificially added humongous depth equalize errors into the RCS inspection and the resulting predisposition is limited.
I also surmise that Keith and colleagues underestimated both the largeness and variability of the deprivation of years at the inception of records, but the accent stands select if this is not so. So, I do not accomplish the bottle of one’s convictions embark on that your “view” is accurate.
So covet technique as I can morsel, ECS do not disclose this egress, at least in the circumstances of a conceivable favourable predisposition. The deliberation of RCS in the adscititious materials seems to speculation data d fabric replication.
Are you claiming that the only conceivable predisposition is favourable? I can a admiration of you examples of a feasible unresponsive predisposition using RCS.
It was a generic class of the method.
If you don’t like the replication, that is your technique of outlook. The replication is plainly shown in the adscititious materials apportion as entirely as in the unmixed ownership papers. I would friendship to accomplish more replication as entirely. But we did a admiration of the uncertainties, which you earmarks of to aside in your assessment. Who wouldn’t.
Ironically, the ECS estimates of love in the MWP are not that contrasting to those seen in MBH, as ECS Fig. Are the MBH estimates of MWP love also similarly biased? ECS, as Ed rightly points antiquated, plainly direct, in both words and diagrams at not too points in their ownership papers and in the adscititious materials, that the loads of sites and loads of samples they occupied decreases strictly foregoing 1200. 3 shows. Even so, ECS gives point (second decree of the unpractical, in favour of example) to the reconstruction in that altogether age, and makes a agreement with the greatness of 20th-century warming. In our erudition (Mike and I) we complete in a knock point to a definite puzzler with this implementation of RCS that has a particular arrangement on the reconstruction of a age to which ECS accomplish pooped point. All the methods, and their realizations so covet technique, accomplish valuable problems.
Hence the etched note of attorney every which technique the ECS conclusion on the agreement between the 10th/11th and whilom due 20th centuries. If anyone is interested I Sometimes non-standard due to a momentary note on the replication in the year AD 1000 of records occupied in MBH99 to back away an intimation of what we are up against. I depute it’s bright from this that I don’t squabble with the everyday proposition that all existing reconstructions of hemipsphere-scale temperatures 1000 years ago (or select in favour of all the beginning half of the relocate millennium AD) should be viewed as altogether fundamental.
There is patently a fortune more we can be lost in deliberating on every which technique here.
We all accomplish a fortune to do. I choice unaffectedly sojourn here next to saying that I promote next to the results shown in ECS and choice convey so in my rejoinder to your erudition, pointing antiquated that the utilization of the bit “perilous” could be at bottom as covet technique be applied to MBH. I morsel four grave tasks - 1) more delving of the strengths and limitations of methods like RCS and age-banding - in favour of illustration, how scads samples would accomplish been enough in this at all events, does the RC interchange Sometimes non-standard due to loiter again and again? and so on; 2) utilization of tree-ring records where the deprivation of low-frequency communication is least - those with covet segments from untrained stands; 3) the search in favour of tree-ring parameters without age/size kin trend; 4) the existence of in enormously self-assured proxies with intrinsically bigger low-frequency fidelity.
I’ll sojourn Malcolm empathize with to the technological issues heedless of RC.
Cheers, Malcolm
The Briffa et al observe is to the 1992 ownership papers, Climate Dynamics, 7:111-119
Hi Ed,
OK-thanks in favour of your rejoinder. I’m not in reality prepared to do so myself anyway.
Cheers,
Mike
At 12:09 PM 4/11/02 -0400, Edward Cook wrote:
Hi Mike,
Thanks in favour of the rejoinder. Your other points are entirely entranced. I too do not require to morsel anything actual in our disagreements. I don’t mark that the discipline we are talking every which technique is sufficiently known still to blast the “truth”, which is why we are having some of our disagreements.
It would be a degrade if it got to that and it shouldn’t. I largely wanted to induce clear-cut some issues relating to some criticisms of the ECS results that I deliberating were not extremely kermis. ECS did not go into hiding anything and the uncertainties are plainly indicated in EGS Figs.
My biggest scream is with Malcolm’s contribution to your erudition because it in reality isn’t kermis to utilization such words as “perilous”. 2 and 3. However, Malcolm’s technique of outlook does not invalidate the ECS note. So, you can induce your own criticism. If Malcolm’s annunciation is accurate, than ALL foregoing estimates of NH temperature exceeding the whilom 1000 years are “perilous”, chiefly foregoing AD 1400 when the loads of series within reach declines significantly in most records.
I choice forgo the captivation to induce the erudition to Science within reach to the others on this chronicle, because of my fears of violating the sojourn approach (I break down examples of where doing so has led to Science retracting a melody character publication).
Ed
Ed,
It choice end some loiter again and again to condense these comments, but my badge rejoinder is an individual of some act of God. So thanks in favour of also resisting the captivation to do so. The only authentic interchange from that type is the deliberation of the utilization of RCS.
But I requisite accent antiquated that the melody next to Malcolm and me is altogether correspond to in its restitution to the erudition of clarification that you and I at crafted to send to Science some weeks ago, foregoing your co-author objected to your involvement! If there is no dislike on your apportion, I’d be cheerful to send that to an individual, because it is not under the control of thoughtfulness in Science (a decidedly star-crossed existence, as covet technique as I’m concerned). That is in humongous apportion Malcolm’s contribution, but I promote behind what > Malcolm says. Finally, with heed to the scaling issues, sojourn me unaffectedly Sometimes non-standard due to a organize which speaks more loudly than not too pages perhaps could The organize takes Epser et al (not smoothed, but the annual values) and scales it against the enormously Northern Hemisphere beneficial note 1856-1990 annual mean note, and compares against the canvass 20th century beneficial note (1856-1999), as entirely as with MBH99 and its uncertainties.
I mark there are some authentic sins of exception with heed to the utilization of RCS too, and it would be an neglect on our apportion age to announcement on these. Suppose that Esper et al is on my along touring salesman of the enormously Northern Hemisphere annual mean, as MBH99 purports to be. What the organize shows is decidedly noteworthy. To the distribute that differences come to bearing in heed explain between the two in assuming such a scaling, I restatement them as differences which abide apropos to the in quod info that the extratropical Northern Hemisphere series and enormously Northern Hemisphere series cultivated did not co-vary in the whilom the but technique they co-vary in the 20th century (when both are driven predominantly, in a related sanity, next to anthropogenic forcing, altogether than animate forcing and internal variability).
Scaled in this technique, there is remarkably not enough unlikeness between Esper et al and MBH99 in the beginning rank (the two reconstructions are mostly within the typographical error estimates of MBH99!)!, but as entirely, where they do be break down, this could be explainable in terms of patterns of enhanced mid-latitude continental rejoinder that were discussed, in favour of illustration, in Shindell et al (2001) in Science endure December. Its convey that there are some statistically valuable differences, but certainly no grounds to utilization Esper et al to nullify MBH99 or IPCC ‘2001 as, lugubriously, I accomplish the bottle of one’s convictions embark on at least an individual of the published pieces tacitly appears to require to do. So I mark this organize says a fortune. It is degrade that such a organize, which I mark is a covet technique more eloquent agreement of the two records, was not shown in either Esper et al or the Briffa & Osborn commentary. I am saddened that scads of my colleagues (and, I accomplish unendingly liked to mark friends) didn’t affort me the but moment foregoing this all erupted in our clad. I’ve unendingly assumed the body of you apt moment in favour of commentary on anything we’re every which technique to blast in Nature or Science.
It could accomplish been covet technique avoided.
>
Finally, foregoing any more back-and-forths on this, I require to induce reliable that an individual complex understands that no myself of this was in any technique endlessly meant to be actual, at least not on my apportion (and if it endlessly has, at least on my apportion, seemed that technique, than I delivery my apologies-it was not under the control of any condition intended that way). But that’s flood under the control of the splenetic exceeding. This is in enormously every which technique the “science”. Especially because the implications are so high-minded in this at all events. To the distribute that I (and/or others) go through that the discipline has been mis-represented in places, howsoever, I from one’s own position choice pan out altogether hunker down to induce reliable that a more balanced in consideration of is within reach to the community.
This is what I sought to do w/ the NYT melody and my NPR interrogate, and that is what I’ve sought to do (and Malcolm to, as covet technique as I’m concerned) with the erudition to Science. is something we’re all rueful of at times. Being a smidgen sopping w/ choice of words, and exception, etc. But I do end into it select of unforgivable when it is indisputable how that sloppiness can be exploited. But I depute that is not mis-interpreted as in any technique actual. And you all break down bit in favour of bit what I’m talking every which technique! So, in momentary, I mark are some crucial issues exceeding which we’re in dissent, and where those abide, I choice not averse away from pointing them antiquated.
I depute that suffices,>
Mike
p.s. I depute zero minds this additionally. It seemed like an exception to not cc in Peck and Scott Rutherford on this commerce, so I’ve done that.
At 10:57 AM 4/11/02 -0400, Edward Cook wrote:
Hi Mike and Malcolm,
I accomplish received the erudition that you sent to Science and choice empathize with to it here beginning in some painstaking and later in edited and condensed character in Science.
I hadn’t responded in painstaking foregoing, but do so age because your criticisms choice in a second be in the patent quarter. Since much of what you announcement and attack on has been disseminated to a loads of people in your (Mike’s) select of explosive earlier emails, I am also sending this dull rejoinder antiquated to an individual on that but email chronicle, reserve those at Science. However, I am not attaching your erudition to Science to this email since that is not still in the patent quarter. I requisite convey at the inception that some parts of your erudition to Science are as “flawed” as your claims every which technique Esper et al. It is up to you to send antiquated your submitted erudition to an individual if you force. (hereafter ECS). However, to blast as you do that they a admiration of that the ECS 40-year low-pass temperature reconstruction is “flawed” begs the distrust: “flawed” next to how much? It is not at all bright that scaling the annually resolved RCS order to annually resolved beneficial temperatures beginning foregoing smoothing is the accurate technique to do it.
The Briffa/Osborn perspectives melody points antiquated an grave scaling egress that on my along needs too examination. The ECS series was not under the control of any condition created to into annual, or select decadal, time-scale temperature variability. As ECS showed in their ownership papers (Table 1), the high-frequency correlations with NH mean annual temperatures after 20-year high-pass filtering is only 0.15. Rather, as was plainly indicated in the ownership papers, it was created to a admiration of how an individual can conserve multi-centennial atmosphere variability in unequivocal covet tree-ring records, as a refutation of Broecker’s decidedly “flawed” slug. That issue was expected and it makes no eloquent unlikeness if an individual uses only extra-tropical NH temperature observations. I am game to permit an transitional value, but to all intents not quieten enough to appease you. So, while the amplitude of the temperature-scaled 40-year low-pass ECS series capacity be on the drugged aim (but muffle insigne singular of insignia assumed the gridded borehole temperature note shown in Briffa/Osborn), scaling on the annually resolved observations beginning would to all intents accomplish the converse any technique you look at it become operative of excessively > reducing the amplitude.
Really, the more grave issue from ECS is the enhanced point of multi-centennial variability in the NH extra-tropics exceeding the whilom 1100 years. I should also accent antiquated, again, that you maxim Fig. We can control upon every which technique the amplitude later, but the enhanced multi-centennial variability can not be covet technique dismissed. 3 in ECS BEFORE it was select submitted to Science and not under the control of any condition spiked antiquated the putative scaling “flaw” to me at that loiter again and again. Briffa/Osborn) is what I heed as a “sin of omission”. With regards to the egress of the whilom due 20th century warming, the in quod info that I did not chronicle some observe to or organize of the up-to-date beneficial temperature observations (cf.
What I said was that the estimated temperatures during the MWP in ECS “approached” those in the 20th century rig of that note up to 1990. But I do approve with you that I should accomplish been a smidgen more extensive in my choice of words there. I don’t end into the utilization of “approached” as an egregious overstatement. As you break down, I accomplish publicly stated that I not under the control of any condition intended to chronicle that the MWP was as genial as the whilom due 20th century (e.g., > my New York Times interview). I would lead one to believe that on a former occasion is enough. However, it is a smidgen of overkill to formal twice in the closing sentences of the beginning two paragraphs of your erudition that the ECS results do not refute the unprecedented whilom due 20th century warming.
ECS were also altogether bright every which technique the extra-tropical category of their observations. However, I requisite convey that the “sin of omission” in the Briffa/Osborn melody re the series shown in their organize is a smidgen worrying. So, what you convey in your erudition every which technique the reduced amplitude in your series coming from the tropics, while perchance merit pointing antiquated again, is beating a cheap horse. As they convey in the observations codify of series occupied in their organize (and in Keith’s April 5 email rejoinder to you), Briffa/Osborn only occupied your debark temperature estimates north of 20 degrees and recalibrated the mean of those estimates to the but quarter of land-only beneficial temperatures using the but calibration age in favour of all of the other non-borehole series in the but technique.
However, I muffle mark that their results are fascinating. I would accomplish preferred it if they had occupied your observations north of 30N to induce the comparisons a smidgen more one-to-one. In painstaking, they simulate much of the reduced multi-centennial temperature variability seen in your terminated NH reconstruction. I mark that we accomplish to sojourn being so antagonistic in defending our series and hazardous undertaking to know the strengths and weaknesses of each in broken-down to remodel them. So, if the amplitude of scaled ECS multi-centennial variability is covet technique too drugged (as you would plainly suggest), it appears that it is also too quieten in your estimates in favour of the NH extra-tropics north of 20N. That is the technique that discipline is obliged to pan out. First of all, ECS acknowledged up a admiration of the declining within reach observations one-time to 1200 and its conceivable any technique you look at it become operative on interpreting an MWP in the mean note.
I requisite permit in to being in reality irritated exceeding the assessment of the ECS tree-ring observations standardized using the RCS method. ECS also showed bootstrap aplomb intervals in favour of the mean of the RCS chronologies and showed where the chronologies smidgin antiquated. 2d), and the reduction in comprehensive evaluate largeness (ECS Fig. Even allowing in favour of the reduction in the loads of represented sites foregoing 1400 (ECS Fig. 2b), there is muffle some demonstrate in favour of significantly insusceptible to as a hold oscillate over continue during two intervals that can be plausibly assigned to the MWP. This doesn’t mean that we can’t usefully into the observations in the more weakly replicated intervals.
Of get > we would like to accomplish had all 14 series eiderdown the whilom 1000-1200 years. In any at all events, the replication in the MWP of the ECS order is at least as data d fabric as in other published tree-ring estimates of large-scale temperatures (e.g., NH extra-tropical) covering the whilom 1000+ years. So to formal that “this is a hazardous in essence in favour of an belief of temperature on such a humongous geographic scale” is underhanded, chiefly when it is unclear how scads millennia-long series are contributing the tons of the temperature communication in the Mann/Bradley/Hughes (MBH) reconstruction one-time to AD 1400. It also includes more covet tree-ring records from the NH ascetic latitudes than endlessly foregoing. Let’s be balanced here.
The ECS note was NEVER intended to refute MBH. I basically approve with the closing paragraph of your erudition. It was intended, beginning and pre-eminent, to refute Broecker’s slug in Science that unfairly attacked tree rings. The agreement of ECS with MBH was a deductive instrument to do assumed that it has been accepted next to the > IPCC as the benchmark reconstruction of NH annual temperature variability and interchange exceeding the whilom millennium. To this distribute, ECS succeeded altogether entirely. Several other papers accomplish made correspond to comparisons between MBH and other select more geographically restricted estimates of whilom temperature.
The correlations in Table 2 between ECS and MBH were in the first instance intended to comprehensible the feasible large-scale, low-frequency temperature signal in ECS self-assured of explicitly calibrating the lone RCS chronologies foregoing aggregating them. So, I don’t prove in the slightest in favour of doing so in ECS. The results should as a amount of in quod info accomplish glad you because, in favour of the 20-200 year column, ECS and MBH accomplish correlations of 0.60 to 0.68, depending on the age occupied. Given the incendiary and at times decidedly taboo emails that came antiquated at the loiter again and again when ECS and Briffa/Osborn were published, I could also whirl into the large scream every which technique how the critique organization at Science was “flawed”. Given that ECS is based on a high-minded contract of hip observations not occupied in MBH, this issue validates to a intelligent be heir to the temperature signal in MBH in the 20-200 year column exceeding the whilom 1000 years. I choice only convey that this is a altogether unsafe design to accomplish into and complaints of this patient can covet technique perch both ways.
Regards,
Ed
-
=================================
Dr. I choice submit an fittingly edited and condensed type of this rejoinder to Science. Edward R. Mann
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:esper-
scaledcompare1980.jpg (JPEG/JVWR) (0008FDE3)
-
=================================
Dr. Cook
Email: drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Professor Michael E. Edward R. Mann
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (434) 924-7770FAX: (434)
982-2137
[2]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Malcolm Hughes
==================================
Dr.
Cook
Email: drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
=================================
Professor Michael E. Edward R. Mann
References
1.
Cook
_______________________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.sht
2. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
5.
http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
3.http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0
4. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
From: “Michael E. Yes, you guys accomplish us vanquish on the at cock crow monday aim of things! Your points are all entranced. Mann” mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: Tim Osborn , Ed Cook drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Your erudition to Science
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 12:44:53 -0400
Cc: Malcolm Hughes , esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jto@u.arizona.edu, srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
HI Tim,
Thanks in favour of your declaration. I mark we all approve there is much pan out haven side to be done, more than enough in favour of all of us to be prolonged to be complex in practical collaboration, etc.
It choice be a data d fabric certainty to hazardous undertaking to reprove a fortune of these questions in an article of apt blank fully to argue the nuances that unfortunately cannot be addressed in a shorter melody. Scott and I, in favour of illustration, are all but done article up the pan out based on your call in w/ us endure year, and choice send the badge postal broken-down on to you, Keith, and the others complex in the border on tomorrow’s. I also cognizant your more before you can convey ‘Jack Robinson’ comments every which technique the comparisons, etc. We can assert an unconstrained unlikeness every which technique how entirely those points were conveyed in the Science melody (for illustration, you can be lost in deliberating on how the annunciation in your melody “This note has a smaller amplitude of century-to-century variability, and is uniformly at or border on the loftier limit of alternate records produced next to other researchers” capacity on my along accomplish been interpreted as home MBH99 alone as, in your words, an “outlier”). Your points are all intelligent ones.
We accomplish data d fabric conclude to accomplish the bottle of one’s convictions embark on that our reconstruction *will* in in quod info undervalue extratropical temperature means but covet technique less so enormously globe/hemisphere-means one-time to the 18th century because the in essence functions that in the first instance select the extratropics alone from the enormously hemispheric patterns (e.g., NAO kind patterns and other anomaly patterns mostly carried next to EOFs #2 and #3) start to smidgin antiquated from our in essence select one-time to the 18th century, while the point that trounce resolves the enormously wide-ranging and/or hemispheric mean (with note from MBH98, uniquely humongous loadings in the first instance in the tropics and subtropics) muffle remains. I would be cheerful to argue this accent with you and Keith and others in more painstaking. That is why we accomplish not under the control of any condition published an *extratropical* temperature reconstruction one-time to the 18th century. Thus, I accomplish compared Esper et al w/ our records in the politesse described in my foregoing email, which I mark allows us to analyse the distribute to which differing high-latitude and full-hemispheric patterns may, at times, restatement the select of apprehensive differences between the records when similarly scaled to the enormously hemispheric 1856-1990 mean, and unendingly, within the circumstances of the diagnosed uncertainties. You can give someone a tinkle me on this 10 years from age, and big at choice Sometimes non-standard due to big at a beer.
There is no guarentee, as you convey, that the uncertainties are accurate, but I from one’s own position accomplish the bottle of one’s convictions embark on they’ll promote up exceeding loiter again and again. In any at all events, I depute and fully fancy we can all be prolonged to all be promised in practical interaction & confidently continued collaboration. I look liberal to these more practical interactions. It choice desire some tenderness on all our apportion to the larger issues adjacent our pan out, and the technique it gets presented to the broader community, but I don’t mark that should be all that hazardous. I’ll do my trounce to waken them,
Mike
At 01:57 PM 4/15/02 +0100, Tim Osborn wrote:
Dear all,
well, the loiter again and again quarter may sojourn you accomplish the endure bit foregoing the weekend, but we can accomplish the beginning bit in on a Monday morning!
At 22:35 12/04/02, Michael E. If my comments seemed to assail e.g. Mann wrote:
In keeping w/ the mood of Tom’s and Keith’s emails, I wanted to rig, foregoing we all break asunder in in favour of the weekend, that this is in the final every which technique the discipline, its not actual.
Keith’s motives or incorruptibility, etc. So I wanted to cause no uncertainty every which technique that. I accomplish the bottle of one’s convictions embark on that they were misunderstood (as I tried to induce clear-cut that in my foregoing message), but I can morsel that there was a concealed in favour of spat of my declaration (precision in choice of words is altogether important) assumed the drugged levels of tenderness in this be lost in deliberating on. And of get, I altogether much prove to Keith (and Tim) if they took them my comments that technique.
Thanks in favour of clarifying that, Mike.
They, again, were most decidedly not intended that technique. I mark that both Keith and I interpreted your earlier e-mail as being more imperative of us than you as a amount of in quod info meant it to be. and Briffa & Osborn pieces earmarks of to accomplish been covered adequately already. Most issues adjacent the current Esper et al. There are at bottom a connect of issues on which I’d like to add to a scant comments, confidently clarifying the place altogether than chink up more avenues in favour of be lost in deliberating on.
Perspectives are to assess outlawed up, non-technical and not peer-reviewed. The beginning relates to the long and shape of the Briffa & Osborn melody. Our instructions were: “The Perspective should purvey an overview of current delving in the meadow-land land and restatement to the everyday reader why the pan out is uniquely enlivening.” Is it any bowl over then that we should nave on the hip insights provided next to the Esper et al. Moreover, teeth of the constraints of the perspectives form, I mark we were altogether extensive with our choice of words to accomplish antiquated of misleading the reader. pan out, and that it suggests a another atmosphere yesterday’s infamy than earlier pan out? And that the constraints of the perspectives form (in terms of blank fully, audience and style) prevented us from listing ALL the caveats and uncertainties kin to this and earlier reconstructions and that capacity be of applicableness to their intercomparison? I don’t mark it is surprising, nor do I mark we should be criticised in favour of it.
The observe to the IPCC, in favour of illustration, was not at all sopping - the converse, in in quod info, since it was altogether carefully worded: the IPCC Synthesis Report is referred to, altogether than the enormously TAR, and it is decidedly sincere that there is a nave on the reconstruction of Mann et al. As Mike says, IPCC conclusions were based on other pan out too. in the endure. But I’d postulate that scads of the readers of our outlook won’t accomplish learn about the enormously IPCC blast, so we deliberating it valid to nave on the unlikeness between the hip pan out and that shown in the Synthesis Report (which more choice accomplish seen).
It would only accomplish been unfair if we had implied that the IPCC had ignored this hip pan out - but of get we weren’t doing that, because how could an individual fancy the TAR to end into pan out that is published a year after the TAR itself? We were similarly extensive with our choice of words in our to assess outlawed up disclose of the MWP, next to saying it is “more pronounced” in Esper et al. To do this is certainly not unfair to the IPCC. - this doesn’t mean it is warmer than the others (and and so has no implications in favour of the IPCC conclusion of current uncommon warmth), altogether it is identifiable because it is followed next to stronger cooling. While it hasn’t been explicitly stated, I accomplish the egress that this is considered next to some to be a out of pocket instrument to do. The relocate egress is our re-calibration of the reconstructions.
The painstaking re-calibration we do has a loads of effects, including making the Mann et al. But force sojourn me stabilize you (Mike, Ray and Malcolm) that the conclude in favour of re-calibrating the records is in favour of all *not* to induce your note in a better from up as an outlier, and I depute you accomplish the bottle of one’s convictions embark on me. reconstruction in a better from up more uniformly at the peerless of the distribute of alternatives.
Indeed, in Jones, Osborn & Briffa (2001: Science 292, 662-667) we showed diverse NH records *without* applying our re-calibration. The latter two reasons were removed next to re-calibrating against a garden quarry series and exceeding a garden age. We produced our beginning agreement of records in favour of an earlier Science perspectives melody in 1999 (Briffa & Osborn, 1999) and deliberating it would be salutary to do a re-calibration to wipe some of the reasons in favour of inter-reconstruction differences (which can be apropos to: another delegate observations, another statistical methods, another calibration quarry and another calibration period).
We updated this in Briffa et al. Indeed, it may be chiefly sub-optimal in favour of Mann et al., because their reconstruction in a better from burdensome to combines the delegate records to optimally reconstruct enormously NH, annual mean T (whereas we accomplish selected debark north of 20N, warm-season T as our quarry in favour of the recalibration). (2001) and acknowledged that the quarry series (in terms of its spatial and seasonal definition) may not be optimal in all cases.
Despite this, we felt justified in doing the recalibration because the Mann et al. and extracted only debark boxes north of 20N; and (ii) we occupied annual, not warm-season, temperature as the quarry. series muffle outperformed the others in terms of its correlation with the beneficial note exceeding the calibration age! In our latest melody, we accomplish updated the intercomparison in two ways (as entirely as including hip series): (i) we took the spatially-resolved gridded reconstructions of Mann et al. The beginning of these (as explained next to Keith and I in an earlier e-mail, which is repeated underneath because it didn’t accomplish sent to all of you beginning loiter again and again round) deals with all the points raised next to Mike every which technique tropical versus extratropical differences. So that explains what we accomplish done and why. I would again control upon that we were not sopping, because these changes to our intercomparison were carefully deliberating antiquated.
There is some tenderness, plainly, to calibration choices, which implies to me that the sincere uncertainty ranges are to all intents larger than those estimated solely from the statistical properties of calibration residuals (as occupied next to Briffa et al., and [I think] next to Mann et al.). I accomplish haven side the header so it can be looked up, and choice accomplish selected quotes that pertain to the deliberation of the MWP and models. There is plainly more continue to be made!
Best regards to you all
Tim
The next email of May 2003 concerns the Soon and Baliunas ownership papers. From K. states, there are uncertainties and “difficulties” with our swell expertise of Hemispheric temperature histories and valid criticisms or shortcomings in much of our pan out. Briffa:
1.) As Tom W. This is the category of the being - and I accomplish been detest to come to bearing in heed explain embroiled in polarised debates that weightiness too simplistic a delivery of the formal of the artistry or “consensus view”.
The dealing of constructing a canvass atmosphere yesterday’s infamy is only an individual apportion of establishing the related roles of animate and anthropogenic forcings, age and in the tomorrow’s.
2.) The an individual additional accent I would induce that seems to accomplish been overlooked in the discussions up to age, is the invalidity of assuming that the quick-wittedness of a wide-ranging Medieval Warm age, select if shown to be as genial as the swell atmosphere humongous, come hell negates the odds of enhanced greenhouse warming. Without observe to the roles of animate forcings in current and whilom times, comparisons with other periods are of altogether cosmetic value anyway. Probably, most of these can be rebutted, and perchance some of these are already covered in the hand-outs.
3.) From Tom W: While scads of the criticisms are erroneous, and some are gratuitous, there are a loads that earmarks of to me to be decidedly valid. In my in consideration of, howsoever, there a limited loads of points that are valid criticisms.
First, Soon et al. The authentic egress that the flatten (to a cosmetic extent) and the politicians (to a greater extent) accomplish entranced up is the conclusions of the paper’s ingenious delving. in a better from down plainly in favor of the quick-wittedness of a MWE and a LIA. The MWE is more ambagious. I mark scads of us would approve that there was a global-scale self-regulated age that can be identified with a LIA. There are authentic problems in identifying both of these ‘events’ with genuineness apropos to (1) observations coverage, (2) uncertainty in remove functions, and (3) the clamour of internally generated variability on the century loiter again and again raise.
From: Keith Briffa k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: “Michael E.
[My ownership papers on the latter accent is continually ignored next to the paleo community, but it is muffle valid.] So, we would to all intents convey: there was a LIA; but the at all events in favour of *or against* a MWE is not proven. Mann” , Tom Wigley , Phil Jones\
, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Soon et al. It is Oct 30, 2003 and Dr.
paper
Date: Tue May 20 16:07:41 2003
Cc: Jerry Meehl , Caspar Ammann , mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
The next an individual is reliable to be in a column eventually in a second, I vaticinate. Mann is asking his colleagues to look at a ownership papers next to McIntyre and McKitrick (E&E 14, 751-771). Not only were imperative errors made in their inspection that make it exhaustively erroneous, but there in a better from up to accomplish been not too strikingly egocentric decisions made to wipe shape indicators of the ingenious MBH98 network one-time to AD 1600, with a Thespianism on on the resulting reconstruction. The following mention is most fascinating when an individual compares it with the Wegman and North reports:
It is star-crossed that the informed errors, and fake and misleading statements, and unequivocally ersatz results provided in the McIntyre and McKitrick article were endlessly allowed to morsel the bearing in heed explain of epoch next to those would accomplish been on-going to uncover them. It is punctiliously the exceeding which the numerous indicators were removed (pre 1600 period) during which MM reconstruct anomalous love that is in shrill unfriendliness to the undemonstrative conditions observed in MBH98 and about all other self-assured published estimates that we break down of.. Fast liberal to today.
And much more. The profitable confront to the blast of self-assured, the validation of M&M, the Jesus ownership papers, etc. The most damning deliberating is what if Dr. And of get, the stacking of out critique against skeptics while holding up peer-reviewed as the gold insigne singular of insignia demand. Mann had been on-going to sojourn M&M? Would we already be affluent down a follow of unimaginable costs with an unheard-of, select limited certainty of big name?
From: “Michael E. I mark that the large shooting twins up I convey here is sincere! But we’ve got to be reliable.
Mann” mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: “raymond s.bradley” , mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, “Phil Jones”
, Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn , mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Scott Rutherford srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Can you accomplish the bottle of one’s convictions embark on it???
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 09:02:53 -0500
Guys, can you end a look at this. There are more technological things they did off the target that I require to add to, but this is the imperative bit-what do you mark.
mike
________________________________________
The current ownership papers next to McIntyre and McKitrick (Energy and Environment, 14, 751-771) claims to be an “audit” of the inspection of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) or “MBH983. Comments? Thanks. An audit involves a extensive examination, using the but observations and following the wrest procedures occupied in the blast or learn about being audited. Their inspection is important only in how exhaustively they accomplish misrepresented the observations, methods, and results of MBH98. McIntyre and McKitrick (”MM”) accomplish done no such instrument, having occupied neither the observations nor the procedures of MBH98.
Journals that find out imperative comments on a in the past published papers unendingly purvey the authors who are being criticized an moment to critique the learn about one-time to announcement, and delivery them the certainty to empathize with. Mann and colleagues were not under the control of any condition assumed this moment, nor were any other unsurpassed paleoclimate scientists that we’re well-disposed with. This is insigne singular of insignia operating conduct in any justifiable peer-reviewed well-organized yearbook. It is star-crossed that the informed errors, and fake and misleading statements, and unequivocally ersatz results provided in the McIntyre and McKitrick article were endlessly allowed to morsel the bearing in heed explain of epoch next to those would accomplish been on-going to uncover them.
We surmise the hellishly checkered yesterday’s infamy of “Energy and Environment” has some lines to challenger in this. humongous. The authors should retire their article at the drop of a hat, and egress a patent apology to the atmosphere delving community in favour of the inequity they accomplish done in publishing and promoting this exhaustively apparent and damaged inspection. It is punctiliously the exceeding which the numerous indicators were removed (pre 1600 period) during which MM reconstruct anomalous love that is in shrill unfriendliness to the undemonstrative conditions observed in MBH98 and about all other self-assured published estimates that we break down of.
Not only were imperative errors made in their inspection that make it exhaustively erroneous, but there in a better from up to accomplish been not too strikingly egocentric decisions made to wipe shape indicators of the ingenious MBH98 network one-time to AD 1600, with a Thespianism on on the resulting reconstruction.
While the authors dutifully cite the limited inconsistency between the loads of delegate indicators reported next to, and on in the patent observations archive, of Mann et al disaffirm hunker down pressed in loiter again and again (there on my along in a better from up to accomplish been some picayune typos in the MBH98 paper), it is abnormal that they do not cite the loads of indicators in their putative type of the Mann et al network based on the self-assured accumulation of observations, disaffirm hunker down pressed loiter again and again. It seems abnormal, on my along, that their “substitutions” of other versions (or in some at all events, only apparent, and not sincere to force, versions) of delegate observations series in favour of those in the ingenious Mann et al (1998) network has the discriminative any technique you look at it become operative of deleting shape delegate indicators that purvey Thespianism cooling during the 16th century, when the MM reconstruction shows an anomalous warming departure from the Mann et al (1998) and all other published Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions.
The reader is bit for bit haven side to do a extravagant amount of detective pan out, based on the tables in their pages 20-23, to clinch at bottom what observations accomplish been eliminated from the ingenious Mann et al network.
Here are some imperfect examples:
1) The authors (see their Figure 4) substitute a younger type of an individual of the Jacoby et al Northern Treeline series in favour of the older type occupied next to MBH98. Scientists with expertness in dendroclimatology break down that this behavior represents a shrivel up in the tenderness to temperature in current decades that cultivated is kin to conditions other than temperature which are limiting tree growth]
2) The authors excise, without any justification, the canvass dataset of 70 Western North American (WNA) tree-ring series within reach between 1400 and 1600 (this dataset is represented, next to MBH98, in terms of a smaller loads of touring salesman Principal Component loiter again and again series). This changing has any technique you look at it become operative of removing a predictor of 15th century cooling [Incidentally, MM induce much of the predisposition in favour of some tree give someone a tinkle series, such as this an individual, to a admiration of an apparent cooling exceeding the whilom connect decades.
The unsurpassed point of lack of harmony in this observations select exhibits conditions from 1400-1800 that are dramatically colder than the mid and whilom due 20th century, and a altogether evident cooling in the 15th century in painstaking. The authors eliminated this canvass dataset because they claimed that the underlying observations was not within reach in the patent quarter.