cc: Tim Osborn , "raymond s.bradley" , Phil Jones , Keith Briffa , Scott Rutherford date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 20:04:06 -0700 from: mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu subject: Re: Can you believe it??? to: "Michael E. Mann" Mike - my ability to take part in this discussion is extremely limited - I will probably not see e-mail again until November 5, and I am today unable to open attachments here, so I cannot see and comment on the latest version of your draft rebuttal. I think we are eight hours ahead of the UK and 14 ahead of the US east coast so I will probably not see any replies from any of you before Wednesday (unless you're working late on Thursday). This means my name cannot go on anything new before next Wednesday. I think we need to have a detailed rebuttal document on file, for use on a case- by-case basis, but I do not think it can be used as a "press release". I am in strong sympathy with the tone of both Keith's remarks and Ray's suggestion. Even in the "file copy" of the rebuttal document, there should be not the slightest reference to MM's motives or expertise, nor to the history of the journal E and E. Rather, it should detail the flaws in their article. In fact, it might best be viewed as a briefing document for scientific colleagues performing the role Ray suggests for CRU. On Ray's suggestion, it might be good, if the colleagues concerned were willing to get involved in this lousy business and give of their time, to broaden the base beyond Keith, Phil and Tim. Perhaps Tom Wigley, with his NCAR base, could be of help in pulling this off. His name, and perhaps a couple of other quantitative big shots who have not been involved in reconstructions on this time scale would extend the "authority" beyond we reconstructers. I remember the way Rick Anthes rallied people around Ben Santer in the previous incarnation of this fight and I think the statement he and others issued played a big part in showing the scientific commnity what was going on Mike - any more news about USA Today? Cheers, Malcolm Quoting "Michael E. Mann" : > > > sorry, some typos fixed and minor changes in the attachment. > > > please work w/ this if you care to makes > edits/additions/suggestions/etc.... > > > thanks, > > > mike > > > At 04:23 PM 10/30/2003 +0000, Tim Osborn wrote: > > Mike, > > > in case you're worried by a lack of response from this side of the > Atlantic, then it's because Phil is away today and Keith and I have just > been in a project progress meeting all afternoon. > > > Cheers > > > Tim > > > At 16:16 30/10/2003, Michael E. Mann wrote: > > Dear Tim et al, > > > Attached is my response, after several days of looking at what they've > done. > > > I think this will speak for itself. > > > I look forward to your comments and thoughts, > > > mike > > > At 02:13 PM 10/30/2003 +0000, Tim Osborn wrote: > > Mike et al., > > > have you seen the update that McIntyre has put on > http://www.climate2003.com/ > - including copies of all emails etc. regarding obtaining the data.  He's got > wind of your reply from David Appell, and responded in some way.  They're > getting into the argument of who's fault it was that the data they used were > wrong - whereas the thing to focus on is that their results are wrong, rather > than who's fault this was. > > > Cheers > > > Tim > > > At 14:02 30/10/2003, you wrote: > > Guys, can you take a look at this. > > > I think that everything I say here is true! But we've got to be sure. > > > There are more technical things they did wrong that I want to add, but this > is the critical bit--what do you think. Comments? Thanks... > > > mike > > > ________________________________________ > > The recent paper by McIntyre and McKitrick (Energy and Environment, 14, > 751-771) claims to be an "audit" of the analysis of Mann, Bradley and Hughes > (1998) or "MBH98".  An audit involves a careful examination, using the same > data and following the exact procedures used in the report or study being > audited.  McIntyre and McKitrick ("MM") have done no such thing, having used > neither the data nor the procedures of MBH98. Their analysis is notable only > in how deeply they have misrepresented the data, methods, and results of > MBH98. Journals that receive critical comments on a previously published > papers always provide the authors who are being criticized an opportunity to > review the study prior to publication, and offer them the chance to respond.  > This is standard operating procedure in any legitimate peer-reviewed > scientific journal. Mann and colleagues were never given this opportunity, > nor were any other leading paleoclimate scientists that we're familiar with.  > It is unfortunate that the profound errors, and false and misleading > statements, and entirely spurious results provided in the  McIntyre and > McKitrick article were ever allowed to see the light of day by those would > have been able to detect them. . We suspect the extremely checkered history > of "Energy and Environment" has some role to play in this. The authors should > retract their article immediately, and issue a public apology to the climate > research community for the injustice they have done in publishing and > promoting this deeply deceptive and flawed analysis. > > > > > > Not only were critical errors made in their analysis that render it > thoroughly invalid, but there appear to have been several strikingly > subjective decisions made to remove key indicators of the original MBH98 > network prior to AD 1600, with a dramatic impact on the resulting > reconstruction.  It is precisely the over which the numerous indicators were > removed (pre 1600 period) during which MM reconstruct anomalous warmth  that > is in sharp opposition to the cold conditions observed in MBH98 and  nearly  > all other independent published estimates that we know of. > > > > > > While the authors dutifully cite the small inconsistency between the number > of proxy indicators reported by, and found in the public data archive, of > Mann et al back in time (there indeed appear to have been some minor typos in > the MBH98 paper), it is odd that they do not cite the number of indicators in > their putative version of the Mann et al network based on the independent > collection of data, back time. The reader is literally left to do a huge > amount of detective work, based on the tables in their pages 20-23, to > determine just what data have been eliminated from the original Mann et al > network. It seems odd, indeed, that their "substitutions" of other versions > (or in some case, only apparent, and not actual, versions) of proxy data > series for those in the original Mann et al (1998) network has the selective > effect of deleting key proxy indicators that contribute dramatic 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. > > > > > > Here are some blatant examples: > > > > > > 1) The authors (see their Figure 4) substitute a younger version of one of > the Jacoby et al Northern Treeline series for the older version used by > MBH98. This substitution has effect of removing a predictor of 15th century > cooling [Incidentally, MM make much of the tendency for some tree ring > series, such as this one, to show an apparent cooling over the past couple > decades. Scientists with expertise in dendroclimatology know that this > behavior represents a  decrease in the sensitivity to temperature in recent > decades that likely is related to conditions other than temperature which are > limiting tree growth] > > > > > > 2) The authors eliminate, without any justification, the entire dataset of 70 > Western North American (WNA) tree-ring series available between 1400 and 1600 > (this dataset is represented, by MBH98, in terms of a smaller number of > representative Principal Component time series). The leading pattern of > variance in this data set exhibits conditions from 1400-1800 that are > dramatically colder than the mid and late 20th  century, and a very prominent > cooling in the 15th century in particular. The authors eliminated this entire > dataset because they claimed that the underlying data was not available in > the public domain. > > > > > > In point of fact, not only were the individual WNA data all available on the > public ftp site provided by Mann and colleagues: > ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MBH98/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/, but they were > also available, despite the claims to the contrary by MM, on NOAA's website > as well: ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/treering/chronologies/northamerica/usa > > > > > > The deletion of this critical (see Mann et al, 1999) dataset appears to  one > of the more important censorings performed by MM  that allows them to achieve > their spurious result of apparent 15th-16th century warmth. > > > > > > We have not, as yet, finished determining just how many important indicators > were subtly censored from the MBH98 dataset by the various subjective > substitutions described on pages 20-23. However, given the relatively small > number of indicators available between 1400-1500 in the MBH98 network (22-24) > and their elimination of some of the more critical ones, it would appear that > this subjective censoring of data, alone, explains the spurious, misleading, > and deceptive result achieved by the authors. > > > > > > Incidentally, MBH98 go to great depths to perform careful cross-validation > experiments as a function of increasing sparseness of the candidate > predictors back in time, to demonstrate statistically significant > reconstructive skill even for their earlier (1400-1450) reconstruction > interval. MM describe no cross-validation experiments. We wonder what the > verification resolved variance is for their reconstruction based on their > 1400-1450 available network, during the independent latter 19th century > period? > > > > > > There are numerous other serious problems that would render the MM analysis > completely invalid, even in the absence of the serious issue raised above, > and these are detailed below > > > > > > . > > > . > > > . > > > ______________________________________________________________ > >                     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 > >          http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml > > Dr Timothy J Osborn > > Climatic Research Unit > > School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia > > Norwich  NR4 7TJ, UK > > > e-mail:   t.osborn@uea.ac.uk > > phone:    +44 1603 592089 > > fax:      +44 1603 507784 > > web:      http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ > > sunclock: > http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm_____________________________________ _________________________ > >                     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 > >          http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml > > Dr Timothy J Osborn > > Climatic Research Unit > > School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia > > Norwich  NR4 7TJ, UK > > > e-mail:   t.osborn@uea.ac.uk > > phone:    +44 1603 592089 > > fax:      +44 1603 507784 > > web:      http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ > > sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm > > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > >                     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 > >          http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml > >