Tuesday, December 20, 2011


From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: latest draft of 2000-year section text
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:21:28 -0700
Cc: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>, rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de, cddhr@giss.nasa.gov, joos <joos@climate.unibe.ch>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no>

Hi Tim, Keith and Stefan - We certainly can't get into the details of
the debate, both for space reasons, and because K & T have gotten us
away from the more "defensive" impression our FOD gave reviewers and
others. Although I share Stefan's concern that we almost have to
hammer the misinformation to death, I think we'll be ok dealing with
it succinctly, and focusing on the bigger picture - Mann et al., and
all the controversy is history - we know much more now, and it makes
for stronger statements. Keith and Tim have done a nice job balancing
all this, and we have to hope that all the Mann et al controversy
will start sounding as dated as it is. I know I make that point
pretty clearly when I talk to the media.

BUT, I leave it to Keith and Tim to tweak the discussion to reflect
Stafan's concern as appropriate.

thanks, Peck

>Hi Stefan,
>our (Keith and mine) understanding of this issue is that Burger et
>al. (2006, Tellus, already published and therefore citable) already
>point out the von Storch et al. (2004) mistake in implementing the
>Mann et al. (1998) method. But we haven't stated this (or cited the
>Science in press comment) because Burger et al. also demonstrate
>that when they implement the method without the detrending step
>(i.e., following the Mann et al. approach more accurately than von
>Storch et al. did) then the bias is still there, though of smaller
>magnitude than von Storch et al. (2004) suggested. Given that we
>already say that the extent of any bias is uncertain, it does not
>seem necessary to go into the details any further by discussing the
>implementation by von Storch et al. of the Mann et al. method.
>Finally, I think (though here it is less clear from their paper and
>I am relying on my recollection of talking to Gerd Burger) that
>Burger et al. also show that the amount of noise von Storch et al.
>added to create the pseudo-proxies yields a pseudo-reconstruction
>that has much better verification skill than obtained by Mann et al.
>(1998) for their real reconstruction. If they increase the noise
>added (deteriorating the "skill" of the pseudo-proxies) until they
>get similar verification statistics as Mann et al. report, then the
>size of the bias gets bigger. In fact, the bias they obtain with
>the higher noise but "correct" no-detrending method is actually very
>similar to the bias von Storch et al. reported with lower noise but
>incorrect detrending method! So where does that leave us? I don't
>think there's room to put all this in. Of course the magnitude of
>the bias cannot be determined from any pseudo-proxy simulation
>anyway, and will be different for different models.
>We'd be interested to know if your (or others on the cc list)
>interpretation of Burger et al. (2006) is significantly different to
>At 16:42 28/02/2006, Stefan Rahmstorf wrote:
>>Hi Keith and others,
>>attached is the draft Keith sent on 21 Feb of the 2000-year
>>section, with comments and edits (grey) from me.
>>I note that Von Storch et al. 2004 is cited without it being
>>mentioned that they did not implement the Mann et al. method
>>correctly - by detrending before calibration, the performance of
>>the method was greatly degraded in their model. I guess you left
>>this out because the comment to Science showing this is still in
>>press? Will it be added once this has been published? I think it is
>>a major point, as it was such a high-profile paper - Von Storch's
>>contention that the "hockey stick" is "nonsense" (cited in the US
>>Senate) is based on a mistake.
>>Cheers, Stefan
>>To reach me directly please use: rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de
>>(My former addresses @pik-potsdam.de are read by my assistant Brigitta.)
>>Stefan Rahmstorf
>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

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

No comments:

Post a Comment