Sunday, December 11, 2011


From: "Michael E. Mann" <>
To:, Keith Briffa <>, Tom Crowley <>, Phil Jones <>, Michael Oppenheimer <>, Jonathan Overpeck <>, Kevin Trenberth <>, Tom Wigley <>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Prospective Eos piece?
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 16:12:06 -0400
Cc:, Scott Rutherford <>

Dear All,
I've attached a draft (attached word document), incorporating many of the suggestions,
wording, etc. I've already recieved from various of you. Some specific
comments/inquiries/requests for help indicated in yellow highlighting. Waiting to hear
back from Peck and Tom C (guys: if you're out there, can you give a holler, to let me know
your disposition? thanks). Otherwise everyone else has indicated they're on board.
I've been in touch w/ Judy Jacobs at AGU to clarify the ground rules. Apparently we *can*
refer, where necessary, to press releases, parenthetically in the piece. I think this is
important in our case because there is a subtle, but important, distinction between what
the papers actual purport to show, and what the authors (and their promoters) have
*claimed* they show (e.g. in the Harvard-Smithsonian press release). We need to draw out
this distinction-I sent Judy my paragraph on that, and she said it looks fine--so
apparently its kosher.
I've avoided any reference to unpublished work however (e.g. Mann and Jones), because this
opens up a can of worms. We can nicely make use of work that Keith has already done to
provide a suggestion of the longer-term (past 2K) changes, for greater context...
Re, references--we necessarily have to go well over the normal 10 or so, because part of
the strength of our piece is the wealth of recent studies supporting our basic conclusions.
Judy said that's ok too--especially since our text is short (by about 100 words) relative
to the official (1200 word) limit. So we should try to keep it that, we need to
play a zero-sum game, as much as possible, with any suggested revisions.
Re figures, Scott Rutherford has generously offered to help prepare a draft of figure 1
which I'll send on to everyone once its available.
I've also described, in the figure caption, my concept of Figure 2--clearly it would be
helpful if Phil and Ray could collaborate on the preparation of this one (guys?).
Looking forward to comments, and suggested revisions. I'll just accumulate these from
everyone in whatever form you prefer to provide them (emailed comments, word file w/ track
changes or highlighting of changes used, etc) and try to prepare a revised draft once I've
heard back from everyone.
Thanks again to everyone for their willingness to help with this and to be involved with

Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:17:57 -0400
To: Phil Jones <>,, Tom Wigley
<>, Tom Crowley <>, Keith Briffa <>,, Michael Oppenheimer <>, Jonathan Overpeck
From: "Michael E. Mann" <>
Subject: Re: Prospective Eos piece?
Cc:, Scott Rutherford <>
Thanks Phil, and Thanks Tom W and Keith for your willingness to help/sign on. This
certainly gives us a "quorum" pending even a few possible additional signatories I'm
waiting to hear back from.
In response to the queries, I will work on a draft today w/ references and two
suggested figures, and will try to send on by this evening (east coast USA). Tom W
indicated that he wouldn't be able look at a draft until Thursday anyway, so why doesn't
everyone just take a day then to digest what I've provided and then get back to me with
comments/changes (using word "track changes" if you like).
I'd like to tentatively propose to pass this along to Phil as the "official keeper" of
the draft to finalize and submit IF it isn't in satisfactory shape by the time I have to
leave (July 11--If I hadn't mentioned, I'm getting married, and then honeymoon, prior to
IUGG in Sapporo--gone for about 1 month total). Phil, does that sound ok to you?
Re Figures, what I had in mind were the following two figures:
1) A plot of various of the most reliable (in terms of strength of temperature signal
and reliability of millennial-scale variability) regional proxy temperature
reconstructions around the Northern Hemisphere that are available over the past 1-2
thousand years to convey the important point that warm and cold periods where highly
regionally variable. Phil and Ray are probably in the best position to prepare this (?).
Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this
category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back--I think that trying to adopt a
timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made
w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP",
even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back
[Phil and I have one in review--not sure it is kosher to show that yet though--I've put
in an inquiry to Judy Jacobs at AGU about this]. If we wanted to be fancy, we could do
this the way certain plots were presented in one of the past IPCC reports (was it 1990?)
in which a spatial map was provided in the center (this would show the locations of the
proxies), with "rays" radiating out to the top, sides, and bottom attached to rectanges
showing the different timeseries. Its a bit of work, but would be a great way to convey
both the spatial and temporal information at the same time.
2) A version of the now-familiar "spaghetti plot" showing the various reconstructions as
well as model simulations for the NH over the past 1 (or maybe 2K). To give you an idea
of what I have in mind, I'm attaching a Science piece I wrote last year that contains
the same sort of plot.
However, what I'd like to do different here is:
In addition to the "multiproxy" reconstructions, I'd like to Add Keith's maximum
latewood density-based series, since it is entirely independent of the multiproxy
series, but conveys the same basic message. I would also like to try to extend the scope
of the plot back to nearly 2K. This would be either w/ the Mann and Jones extension (in
review in GRL) or, if that is deemed not kosher, the Briffa et al Eurasian tree-ring
composite that extends back about 2K, and, based on Phil and my results, appears alone
to give a reasonably accurate picture of the full hemispheric trend.
Thoughts, comments on any of this?
thanks all for the help,
At 09:25 AM 6/4/2003 +0100, Phil Jones wrote:

This is definitely worth doing and I hope you have the time before the 11th, or can
it on to one of us at that time. As you know I'm away for a couple of days but back
So count me in. I've forwarded you all the email comments I've sent to reporters/fellow
scientists, so you're fully aware of my views, which are essentially the same as all of
the list
and many others in paleo. EOS would get to most fellow scientists. As I said to you the
day, it is amazing how far and wide the SB pieces have managed to percolate. When it
out I would hope that AGU/EOS 'publicity machine' will shout the message from rooftops
everywhere. As many of us need to be available when it comes out.
There is still no firm news on what Climate Research will do, although they will
have two editors for potentially controversial papers, and the editors will consult
when papers
get different reviews. All standard practice I'd have thought. At present the editors
get no
guidance whatsoever. It would seem that if they don't know what standard practice is
they shouldn't be doing the job !
At 22:34 03/06/03 -0400, Michael E. Mann wrote:

Dear Colleagues,
Eos has invited me (and prospective co-authors) to write a 'forum' piece (see below).
This was at Ellen Mosely-Thompson's suggestion, upon my sending her a copy of the
attached memo that Michael Oppenheimer and I jointly wrote. Michael and I wrote this to
assist colleagues who had been requesting more background information to help counter
the spurious claims (with which I believe you're all now familiar) of the latest
Baliunas & Soon pieces.
The idea I have in mind would be to use what Michael and I have drafted as an initial
starting point for a slightly expanded piece, that would address the same basic issues
and, as indicated below, could include some references and figures. As indicated in
Judy Jacobs' letter below, the piece would be rewritten in such a way as to be less
explicitly (though perhaps not less implicitly) directed at the Baliunas/Soon claims,
criticisms, and attacks.
Phil, Ray, and Peck have already indicated tentative interest in being co-authors. I'm
sending this to the rest of you (Tom C, Keith, Tom W, Kevin) in the hopes of broadening
the list of co-authors. I strongly believe that a piece of this sort co-authored by 9
or so prominent members of the climate research community (with background and/or
interest in paleoclimate) will go a long way ih helping to counter these attacks, which
are being used, in turn, to launch attacks against IPCC.
AGU has offered to expedite the process considerably, which is necessary because I'll be
travelling for about a month beginning June 11th. So I'm going to work hard to get
something together ASAP. I'd would therefore greatly appreciate a quick response from
each of you as to whether or not you would potentially be willing to be involved as a
co-author. If you're unable or unwilling given other current commitments, I'll
Thanks in advance for getting back to me on this,

Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 20:19:08 -0400
From: Ellen Mosley-Thompson <>
Subject: Re: position paper by Mann,
Bradley et al that is a refutation to Soon et al
To: Judy Jacobs <>, "Michael E. Mann" <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3
Judy and Mike -
This sounds outstanding.
Am I right in assuming that Fred reviews and approves the Forum pieces?
If so, can you hint about expediting this. Timing is very critical here.
Judy, thanks for taking the bull by the horns and getting the ball rolling.
Best regards,
At 07:33 PM 06/03/2003 -0400, Judy Jacobs wrote:

Dear Dr. Mann,
Thanks for the prompt reply.
Based on what you have said, it sounds to me as if Mann, Bradley, et al. will not be in
violation of AGU's prohibition on duplicate publication.
The attachment to your e-mail definitely has the look and feel of something that would
be published in Eos under the "FORUM" column header. FORUM pieces are usually comments
on articles of any description that have been published in previous issues of Eos; or
they can be articles on purely scientific or science policy-related issues around which
there is some controversy or difference of opinion; or articles on current public issues
that are of interest to the geosciences; or on issues--science or broader policy
ones---0n which there is an official AGU Position Statement. In this last category, I
offer, for example, the teaching of creationism in public schools, either alongside
evolution, or to the exclusion of evolution.
AGU has an official Position Statement, "Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases," which
states, among other things, that there is a high probability that man-made gases
primarily from the burning of fossil fuels is contributing to a gradual rise in mean
globab temperatures. In this context, your proto-article---in the form of the attachment
you sent me-- would seem right on target for a Forum piece. However, since the Soon et
al. article wasn't actually published in Eos, anything that you and Dr. Bradley craft
will have to minimize reference to the specific article or articles, and concentrate on
"the science" that is set forth in these papers. Presumably this problem could be
solved by simply referencing these papers.
A Forum piece can be as long as 1500 words, or approximately 6 double-spaced pages. A
maximum of two figures is permitted. A maximum of 10 references is encouraged, but if
the number doesn't exceed 10 too outrageously, I don't make a fuss, and neither will
Authors are now asked to submit their manuscripts and figures electronically via AGU's
Internet-based Geophysical Electronic Manuscript System (GEMS), which makes it possible
for the entire submission-review process to be conducted online.
If you have never used GEMS before, you can register for a login and password, and get
initial instructions, by going to
If you would like to have a set of step-by-step instructions for first-time GEMS users,
please ask me.
Ellen indicated that she/you would like to get something published sooner rather than
later. The Eos staff can certainly expedite the editorial process for anything you and
your colleagues submit.
Don't hesitate to contact me with any further questions.
Best regards,
Judy Jacobs
Michael E. Mann wrote:

Dear Judy,
Thanks very much for getting back to me on this. Ellen had mentioned this possibility,
and I have been looking forward to hearing back about this.
Michael Oppenheimer and I drafted an informal memo that we passed along to colleagues
who needed some more background information so that they could comment on the Soon et al
papers in response to various inquiries they were receiving from the press, etc. I've
attached a copy of this memo.
It has not been our intention for this memo to appear in print, and it has not been
submitted anywhere for publication. On the other hand, when Ellen mentioned the
possibility of publishing something *like* this in e.g. the "Eos" forum, that seemed
like an excellent idea to me, and several of my colleagues that I have discussed the
possibility with.
What we had in mind was to produce a revised version of the basic memo that I've
attached, modifying it where necessary, and perhaps expanding it a bit, seeking broader
co-authorship by about 9 or so other leading climate scientists. So far, Phil Jones of
the University of East Anglia, Ray Bradley of the University of Massachusetts, and
Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona, have all indicated their interest in
co-authoring such a piece. We suspect that a few other individuals would be interested
in being co-authors as well. I didn't want to pursue this further, however, until I
knew whether or not an Eos piece was a possibility.
So pending further word from you, I would indeed be interested in preparing a
multi-authored "position" paper for Eos in collaboration with these co-authors, based
loosely on the memo that Ihave attached.
I look forward to further word from you on this.
best regards,
mike mann
At 04:59 PM 6/3/2003 -0400, you wrote:

Dear Dr. Mann,
I am the managing editor for Eos, the weekly newspaper of the American
Geophysical Union.
Late last week, the Eos editor for atmospheric sciences, Ellen
Mosley-Thompson, asked me if Eos would publish what she called "a
position paper" by you, Phillip Bradley, et al that would, in effect,
be a refutation to a paper by Soon et al. that was published in a
British journal, Energy & Environment a few weeks ago. This Energy &
Environment article was subsequently picked up by the Discovery
Channel and other print and electronic media that reach the general
Before I can answer this question, I need to ask if you and your
colleagues intend for this position paper to be published
simultaneously in outlets other than Eos. If this is the case, I'm
afraid it being published in Eos is a moot point, because of AGU's no
duplicate publication policy: if the material has been published
elsewhere first, AGU will not publish it.
I look forward to your response.
Best regrds,
Judy Jacobs

Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
e-mail: Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137

Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
e-mail: Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137

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

Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
e-mail: Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137

Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
e-mail: Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\EosForum.doc"



No comments:

Post a Comment