From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>
To: mann@psu.edu
Subject: Re: expert review comments on AR4
Date: Thu May 25 17:34:59 2006

   Hi Mike
   thanks for these comments and especially thanks for your remarks on the effort of trying to
   produce a balanced picture of the current state of things in the IPCC Chapter 6. In fact ,
   I know that it is already out of date and I am going to get particularly lambasted for not
   discussing problems with recent tree responses to warming and potential problems wit CO2
   fertilization - I may have to add even more text yet .You are absolutely correct that we
   had unreasonable trouble from Susan , who was not as "hands off" as she might have been. I
   will certainly study your comments carefully - as I always do .  I would rather reserve
   comment on the Crowley reconstruction til I speak personally to you. I really hope that we
   can get an atmosphere of constructive discussion that , I believe, must include some
   discussion of the sceptics . Look forward to those drinks and some time away from the mad
   house of teaching/exam marking etc. See you soon
   best wishes
   Keith
   At 18:08 24/05/2006, you wrote:

     Hi Keith,
     I wanted you to have an advance copy of the comments I'll be submitting on the final
     draft of the AR4. I commend you for the excellent work you've done and the tough battle
     I know you have had to fight. I don't envy it, and you know the tough battles I've been
     through.
     Confidentially,  I do have a number of specific concerns mostly in the area of
     discussions of where things actually now stand in terms of some of the earlier
     criticisms. I believe that the discussion is still out of date, given what has been
     shown in recent publications, including Wahl and Ammann (Science). Also, and I don't
     think this is the only place you're going to hear this from, there are deep problems w/
     Hegerl et al '06, particularly the claims of what TLS can do, which are egregiously
     incorrect.  There is a comment in review in Nature (not me, but I can promise you, by
     someone who understands the statistical issues involved better than anyone else in our
     community) that is very critical.  I think its unwise for the TAR to uncritically accept
     the claims made, particularly given that the actual J. Climate paper was in limbo at
     least at the time the most recent draft was finalized. I believe that disqualifies it
     for consideration for AR4, no?
     Also, I think it is an absolute travesty that figure 6.10 isn't being shown in the SPM.
     I think that is unforgiveable, and there should be an effort to over-ride that decision
     (I would suspect that is Susan Solomon's doing?),
     I hope we can discuss these things (and much else) over a few beers in Switzerland.
     Looking forward to seeing you soon,
     mike
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
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:  [1]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013

[2]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm


   --
   Professor Keith Briffa,
   Climatic Research Unit
   University of East Anglia
   Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.

   Phone: +44-1603-593909
   Fax: +44-1603-507784
   [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

References

   1. mailto:mann@psu.edu
   2. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
   3. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

