From: Scott Rutherford <srutherford@gso.uri.edu>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: Soon & Baliunas
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:53:07 -0500
Cc: Tom Crowley <tcrowley@duke.edu>, Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>, Malcolm Hughes <mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu>, rbradley@geo.umass.edu, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk

<x-rich>Dear All,


First, I'd be willing to handle the data and the plotting/mapping.
Second, regarding Mike's suggestions, if we use different reference
periods for the reconstructions and the models we need to be extremely
careful about the differences. Not having seen what this will look
like, I suggest that we start with the same instrumental reference
period for both (1856-1960). If you are willing to send me your series
please send the raw (i.e. unfiltered) series. That way I can treat
them all the same. We can then decide how we want to display the
results.


Finally, Tom's suggestion of Eos struck me as a great way to get a
short, pointed story out to the most people (though I have no feel for
the international distribution).  My sense (being relatively new to
this field compared to everyone else) is that within the neo- and
mesoclimate research community there is a (relatively small?) group of
people who don't or won't "get it" and there is nothing we can do
about them aside from continuing to publish quality work in quality
journals (or calling in a Mafia hit).  Those (e.g. us) who are
engrossed in the issues and are aware of all the literature should be
able to distinguish between well done and poor work.  Should then the
intent of this proposed contribution be to education those who are not
directly involved in MWP/LIA issues including those both on the
perifery of the issue as well as those outside? If so, then the issue
that Phil raised about not letting it get buried is significant and I
think Eos is a great way to get people to see it.


Cheers,


Scott


On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 10:32 AM, Michael E. Mann wrote:


<excerpt>p.s. The idea of both a representative time-slice spatial
plot emphasizing the spatial variability of e.g. the MWP or LIA, and
an EOF analysis of all the records is a great idea. I'd like to
suggest a small modification of the latter:


I would suggest we show 2 curves, representing the 1st PC of two
different groups, one of empirical reconstructions, the other of model
simulations, rather than just one in the time plot.


Group #1 could include:


1) Crowley & Lowery

2) Mann et al 1999

3) Bradley and Jones 1995

4) Jones et al, 1998

5) Briffa et al 200X? [Keith/Tim to provide their preferred MXD
reconstruction]

6) Esper et al [yes, no?--one series that differs from the others
won't make much of a difference]


I would suggest we scale the resulting PC to the CRU 1856-1960 annual
Northern Hemisphere mean instrumental record, which should overlap w/
all of the series, and which pre-dates the MXD decline issue...


Group #2 would include various model simulations using different
forcings, and with slightly different sensitivities. This could
include 6 or so simulation results:


1) 3 series from Crowley (2000) [based on different solar/volcanic
reconstructions],

2) 2 series from Gerber et al (Bern modeling group result) [based on
different assumed sensitivities]

1) Bauer et al series (Claussen group EMIC result) [includes 19th/20th
century land use changes as a forcing].


I would suggest that the model's 20th century mean is aligned with the
20th century instrumental N.Hem mean for comparison (since this is
when we know the forcings best).



I'd like to nominate Scott R. as the collector of the time series and
the performer of the EOF analyses, scaling, and plotting, since Scott
already has many of the series and many of the appropriate analysis
and plotting tools set up to do this.


We could each send our preferred versions of our respective time
series to Scott as an ascii attachment, etc.


thoughts, comments?


thanks,


mike


At 10:08 AM 3/12/2003 -0500, Michael E. Mann wrote:


Thanks Tom,


Either would be good, but Eos is an especially good idea. Both Ellen
M-T and Keith Alverson are on the editorial board there, so I think
there would be some receptiveness to such a submission.t


I see this as complementary to other pieces that we have written or
are currently writing (e.g. a review that Ray, Malcolm, and Henry Diaz
are doing for Science on the MWP) and this should proceed entirely
independently of that.


If there is group interest  in taking this tack, I'd be happy to
contact Ellen/Keith about the potential interest in Eos, or I'd be
happy to let Tom or Phil to take the lead too...


Comments?


mike


At 09:15 AM 3/12/2003 -0500, Tom Crowley wrote:


 









<smaller>Phil et al,

</smaller> 

<smaller>I suggest either BAMS or Eos - the latter would probably be
better because it is shorter, quicker, has a wide distribution, and
all the points that need to be made have been made before.

</smaller> 

<smaller>rather than dwelling on Soon and Baliunas I think the message
should be pointedly made against all of the standard claptrap being
dredged up.

</smaller> 

<smaller>I suggest two figures- one on time series and another showing
the spatial array of temperatures at one point in the Middle Ages.  I
produced a few of those for the Ambio paper but already have one ready
for the Greenland settlement period 965-995 showing the regional
nature of the warmth in that figure.  we could add a few new sites to
it, but if people think otherwise we could of course go in some other
direction.

</smaller> 

<smaller>rather than getting into the delicate question of which paleo
reconstruction to use I suggest that we show a time series that is an
eof of the different reconstructions - one that emphasizes the
commonality of the message.

</smaller> 

<smaller>Tom

</smaller> 

 


Dear All,

     I agree with all the points being made and the multi-authored
article would be a good idea,

 but how do we go about not letting it get buried somewhere. Can we
not address the

 misconceptions by finally coming up with definitive dates for the LIA
and MWP and

 redefining what we think the terms really mean? With all of us and
more on the paper, it should

 carry a lot of weight. In a way we will be setting the agenda for
what should be being done

 over the next few years.

     We do want a reputable journal but is The Holocene the right
vehicle. It is probably the

 best of its class of journals out there.  Mike and I were asked to
write an article for the EGS

 journal of Surveys of Geophysics. You've not heard of this - few
have, so we declined. However,

 it got me thinking that we could try for Reviews of Geophysics. Need
to contact the editorial

 board to see if this might be possible. Just a thought, but it
certainly has a high profile.

     What we want to write is NOT the scholarly review a la Jean Grove
(bless her soul) that

 just reviews but doesn't come to anything firm. We want a critical
review that enables

 agendas to be set. Ray's recent multi-authored piece goes a lot of
the way so we need

 to build on this.


 Cheers

 Phil




At 12:55 11/03/03 -0500, Michael E. Mann wrote:


HI Malcolm,


Thanks for the feedback--I largely concur. I do, though, think there
is a particular problem with "Climate Research".  This is where my
colleague Pat Michaels now publishes exclusively, and his two closest
colleagues are on the editorial board and review editor board. So I
promise you, we'll see more of this there, and I personally think
there *is* a bigger problem with the "messenger" in this case...


But the Soon and Baliunas paper is its own, separate issue too. I too
like Tom's latter idea, of a  more hefty multi-authored piece in an
appropriate journal (Paleoceanography? Holocene?) that seeks to
correct a number of misconceptions out there, perhaps using Baliunas
and Soon as a case study ('poster child'?), but taking on a slightly
greater territory too.


Question is, who would take the lead role. I *know* we're all very
busy,


mike


 At 10:28 AM 3/11/03 -0700, Malcolm Hughes wrote:


I'm with Tom on this. In a way it comes back to a rant of mine

to which some of you have already been victim. The general

point is that there are two arms of climatology:

 neoclimatology - what you do based on instrumental records

and direct, systematic observations in networks - all set in a

very Late Holocene/Anthropocene time with hourly to decadal

interests.

paleoclimatology - stuff from rocks, etc., where major changes

in the Earth system, including its climate, associated with

major changes in boundary conditions, may be detected by

examination of one or a handful of paleo records.

Between these two is what we do - "mesoclimatology" -

dealing with many of the same phenomena as neoclimatology,

using documentary and natural archives to look at phenomena

on interannual to millennial time scales. Given relatively small

changes in boundary conditions (until the last couple of

centuries), mesoclimatology has to work in a way that is very

similar to neoclimatology. Most notably, it depends on heavily

replicated networks of precisely dated records capable of

being either calibrated, or whose relationship to climate may

be modeled accuarately and precisely.

Because this distinction is not recognized by many (e.g.

Sonnechkin, Broecker, Karlen) we see an accumulation of

misguided attempts at describing the climate of recent

millennia. It would be better to head this off in general, rather

than draw attention to a bad paper. After all, as Tom rightly

says, we could all nominate really bad papers that have been

published in journals of outstanding reputation (although there

could well be differences between our lists).

End of rant, Cheers, Malcolm

> Hi guys,

>

> junk gets published in lots of places.  I think that what could be

> done is a short reply to the authors in Climate Research OR a
SLIGHTLY

> longer note in a reputable journal entitled something like
"Continuing

> Misconceptions About interpretation of past climate change."  I kind

> of like the more pointed character of the latter and submitting it as

> a short note with a group authorship carries a heft that a reply to a

> paper, in no matter what journal, does not.

>

> Tom

>

>

>

> >  Dear All,

> >        Apologies for sending this again. I was expecting a stack of

> >emails this morning in

> >  response, but I inadvertently left Mike off (mistake in pasting)

> >and picked up Tom's old

> >  address. Tom is busy though with another offspring !

> >      I looked briefly at the paper last night and it is appalling -

> >worst word I can think of today

> >  without the mood pepper appearing on the email ! I'll have time to

> >read more at the weekend

> >  as I'm coming to the US for the DoE CCPP meeting at Charleston.

> >Added Ed, Peck and Keith A.

> >  onto this list as well.   I would like to have time to rise to the

> >bait, but I have so much else on at

> >  the moment. As a few of us will be at the EGS/AGU meet in Nice, we

> >should consider what

> >  to do there.

> >      The phrasing of the questions at the start of the paper

> >determine the answer they get. They

> >  have no idea what multiproxy averaging does. By their logic, I

> >could argue 1998 wasn't the

> >  warmest year globally, because it wasn't the warmest everywhere.

> >With their LIA being 1300-

> >1900 and their MWP 800-1300, there appears (at my quick first

> >reading) no discussion of

> >  synchroneity of the cool/warm periods. Even with the instrumental

> >record, the early and late

> >  20th century warming periods are only significant locally at

> >between 10-20% of grid boxes.

> >       Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do

> >something - even if this is just

> >  to state once and for all what we mean by the LIA and MWP. I think

> >the skeptics will use

> >  this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number
of

> >

> >years if it goes

> >  unchallenged.

> >

> >        I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having

> >nothing more to do with it until they

> >  rid themselves of this troublesome editor.  A CRU person is on the

> >editorial board, but papers

> >  get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.

> >

> >  Cheers

> >  Phil

> >

> >  Dear all,

> >       Tim Osborn has just come across this.  Best to ignore

> >probably, so don't let it spoil your

> >  day. I've not looked at it yet.  It results from this journal

> >having a number of editors. The

> >  responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ.  He has
let

> >

> >a few papers through by

> >  Michaels and Gray in the past.  I've had words with Hans von
Storch

> >

> >about this, but got nowhere.

> >      Another thing to discuss in Nice !

> >

> >  Cheers

> >  Phil

> >

> >>X-Sender: f055@pop.uea.ac.uk

> >>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1

> >>Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:32:14 +0000

> >>To: p.jones@uea

> >>From: Tim Osborn <<t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>

> >>Subject: Soon & Baliunas

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>Dr Timothy J Osborn                 | phone:    +44 1603 592089

> >>Senior Research Associate           | fax:      +44 1603 507784

> >>Climatic Research Unit              | e-mail:   t.osborn@uea.ac.uk

> >>School of Environmental Sciences    | web-site: University of East

> >>Anglia __________|  
<underline><color><param>1999,1999,FFFF</param>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/</color></underline>
Norwich  NR4

> >>7TJ         | sunclock: UK                       |

>
>><underline><color><param>1999,1999,FFFF</param>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm

</color></underline>> >

> >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

>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------

> >-------

> >

> >

> >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Soon & Baliunas 2003.pdf (PDF

> >/CARO) (00016021)

>

>

> --

> Thomas J. Crowley

> Nicholas Professor of Earth Systems Science

> Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences

> Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences

> Box 90227

> 103  Old Chem Building Duke University

> Durham, NC  27708

>

> tcrowley@duke.edu

> 919-681-8228

> 919-684-5833  fax


Malcolm Hughes

Professor of Dendrochronology

Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research

University of Arizona

Tucson, AZ 85721

520-621-6470

fax 520-621-8229



_______________________________________________________________________

                     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

      
<underline><color><param>1999,1999,FFFF</param>http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml</color></underline>



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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------                                                                              






<fixed><bigger>-- 

</bigger></fixed>

Thomas J. Crowley

Nicholas Professor of Earth Systems Science

Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences

Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences

Box 90227

103  Old Chem Building Duke University

Durham, NC  27708


tcrowley@duke.edu

919-681-8228

919-684-5833  fax



<fixed><fontfamily><param>Courier New</param>______________________________________________________________

</fontfamily></fixed>                    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

        
<underline><color><param>1999,1999,FFFF</param>http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml</color></underline>




<fixed><fontfamily><param>Courier New</param>______________________________________________________________

</fontfamily></fixed>                    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

        
<underline><color><param>1999,1999,FFFF</param>http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

</color></underline></excerpt>______________________________________________

		      Scott Rutherford	


University of Virginia		University of Rhode Island

Environmental Sciences		Graduate School of Oceanography

Clark Hall					South Ferry Road

Charlottesville, VA 22903 	Narragansett, RI 02882

srutherford@virginia.edu		srutherford@gso.uri.edu

phone: (434) 924-4669		(401) 874-6599

fax: (434) 982-2137			(401) 874-6811


</x-rich>

