From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: john mitchell <jfbmitchell@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Review comments
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 16:57:03 -0600
Cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no>, Jouzel@lsce.saclay.cea.fr, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk

   Hi John - thanks. I'll cc to Keith and Tim too, and we'll be sure to discuss these in
   Bergen. I'll be on my normal email to the extent we have time to be check email -
   experience suggests it's tough. But... we'll try to keep an eye on email.

   See you soon, best, peck

     Hi Eystein, Jon,



     I am in Geneva at the WMO EC meeting,so I have not had a lot of time to look at the SOD
     comments. I can not get to Bergen before Tuesday. I had a quick look at the comments on
     the hockey stick and include below the questions I think need to be addressed which I
     hope will help the discussions.  I do tbelieve we need a clear answer to the skeptics .
     I have also copied these comments to Jean. Please let me know that you have received
     this, and what email address I can contact you at in Bergen¨.



     With best wishes



     John


     1.      There needs to be a clear statement of why the instrumental and proxy data are
     shown on the same graph. The issue of why we dont show the proxy data for the last few
     decades ( they dont show continued warming) but assume that they are valid for early
     warm periods needs to be explained.





     2 . There are number of methodological issues which need a clear response. There are two
     aspects to this. First , in relation to the TAR and MBA which seems to be the obsession
     of certain reviewers. Secondly (and this I believe this is the main priority for us) in
     relation to conclusions we make in the chapter We should make it clear where our
     comments apply to only MBH (if that is appropriate) , and where they apply to the
     overall findings of the chapter. Our response should consider all the issues for both
     MBH and the overall chapter conclusions



                 a. The role of bristlecone pine data

                 Is it reliable?

                 Is it necessary to include this data to arrive at the conclusion that recent
     warmth is unprecedented?

                 b. Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It
     seems to me  that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no. It is not clear how
     robust and significant the more recent approaches are.


     3.      The chapter notes that new data has been included, but we dont say how much or
     is this is substantial or minor. The impression I have that the amount added is minor,
     but I cant tell.

     4.      The Esper et al and Moburg et al data both show increased variance, but the
     temporal patterns are quite different. We need to say why the discrepancy does not
     undermine our conclusions of greater cooling in the Little Ice Age.

     5.      I have not had time to check the original chapter, but the comments give the
     impression that the recent 50 yr warming is unprecedented over the last 500years (seems
     reasonable) and elsewhere over the last 1000years (less clear)







     John FB Mitchell
     13 De Vitre Green Wokingham
     RG40 1SE
     Tel 01189 782936
     jfbmitchell@yahoo.co.uk
     john.f.mitchell@metoffice.com


       ___________________________________________________________________________________

     Like being first? Check out the [1]all-new Yahoo! Mail today.

--

   Jonathan T. Overpeck
   Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
   Professor, Department of Geosciences
   Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
   Mail and Fedex Address:
   Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
   715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
   University of Arizona
   Tucson, AZ 85721
   direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
   fax: +1 520 792-8795
   http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
   http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/

References

   1. http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail/uk/taglines/yahoo_co_uk/nowyoucan/check_out/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=40569/*http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

