date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:56:30 +0000 from: "Folland, Chris" subject: FW: Hockey stick. to: "p.jones" , k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, OSBORN Phil, Tim and Keith Please see what I sent in reply to the unknown Sceptic via Antonio Regalado. . Chris Professor Chris Folland Head of Climate Variability Research Global climate data sets are available from [1]http://www.hadobs.org Met Office, Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk Tel: +44 (0)1392 886646 Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050 (International) +44 (0)113 336 1072)<[2]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk Also: Hon. Professor of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia -----Original Message----- From: Folland, Chris Sent: 10 February 2005 21:19 To: 'Sir John Houghton'; Regalado, Antonio Subject: RE: Hockey stick. Dear John and Antonio Here is my reply to "Observations of a Sceptic" which also includes some observations on today's paper in Nature by Moberg et al. in the context of the Sceptic's concerns. I believe some technical details of this new paper might be contested by some paleoclimate experts. Its a cutting edge area of climate change science. I hope this helps. If you want any more help, please let me know. Best wishes Chris Professor Chris Folland Head of Climate Variability Research Global climate data sets are available from [3]http://www.hadobs.org Met Office, Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk Tel: +44 (0)1392 886646 Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050 (International) +44 (0)113 336 1072)<[4]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk Also: Hon. Professor of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia -----Original Message----- From: Sir John Houghton [mailto:john.houghton@jri.org.uk] Sent: 04 February 2005 11:47 To: Regalado, Antonio Cc: Chris Folland Subject: Re: Hockey stick. Dear Antonio Regalado Thank you for your email. I am copying this to Chris Folland as he was a convening lead author of the chapter to which you refer and will be able to reply to the queries your skeptic has raised much better than I can. The only points I would make are (1) the discussions around the Mann and other diagrams were entirely scientific in nature; the Mann diagram was the one that was included in the Summary because we believed it to be the best data available at the time. I remember a significant entirely scientific debate regarding its quality at the time. There was no inappropriate bias or 'conspiracy' attached to its inclusion - indeed no such bias would have survived the thorough and open IPCC refereeing procedures. (2) whether or not the MWR was warmer than colder in global average terms than 1998 would make no difference to the IPCC's 2001 report's conclusions about the 20th century record and the contribution of greenhouse gases. With best regards John Houghton On 2 Feb 2005, at 19:39, Regalado, Antonio wrote: Dear Dr. Houghton, Thanks for speaking to me about climate change, skeptics and the IPCC from Exeter. Below appear some questions sent to me by a 'skeptic' (who shall remain anonymous) and who wonders why the Mann graph was presented so prominently in the summary for policy makers. He may be seeing a "conspiracy" where there is none, but I think the observations are interesting. It comes down to a matter of emphasis. Thanks, Antonio Regalado Staff Reporter, Health & Science The Wall Street Journal 200 Liberty Street New York, NY 10281 tel: 212-416-3011 mobile: 917-686-3389 OBSERVATIONS OF A SKEPTIC In Sir Houghton's book Global Warming: the Complete Briefing , published in 1994, he emphasizes (pp 51-52) the widespread evidence of a medieval warm period. This was also shown in the SAR. As of 1997, there were several studies offering hemispheric or global averages: -The borehole records of Huang, Pollack and Shen, published in GRL in 1997, showing a strong MWP much warmer than today -The graphs of Briffa and Jones that appear in Figure 2.21 -The Mann hockey stick with the peak in the late 20th century THe hockey stick is the only reconstruction shown in the Summary (why?) and is the sole basis for the claim that temperatures are the highest in 1000 years. On page 134 in the IPCC's Third Assessment Report the hockey stick is printed twice, in two half-page, full colour versions, one above the other. In Figure 2.20 it is graphed alone. In Figure 2.21 it is overlaid with one graph due to P. Jones and the other due to K. Briffa. The original Jones graph (published in The Holocene in 1998) does not look like a hockey stick, as the "warmest" years are AD1106, AD1074, and AD1103, and the warmest decade is the 1930s. This is not visible in the IPCC version because the line is so heavily smoothed (why?-- the Hockey stick is shown unsmoothed in Fig 2.20). The original Briffa graph (published in Quaternary Science Reviews in 2000) also reaches peak values in the 11th century, but this is not visible in the IPCC presentation since the first 400 years were left out (why?). Two graphs of data based on borehole temperature measurements by Huang et al don't look like the hockey stick either, but one is banished to a small chart on an earlier page (p. 132) and the other is mentioned in the text but is not reproduced at all. Why? Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\REPLIES TO OBSERVATIONS OF A SCEPTIC.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Re Hockey stick..htm"