Tuesday, December 20, 2011

1148592899.txt

From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>
To: mann@psu.edu
Subject: Re: expert review comments on AR4
Date: Thu May 25 17:34:59 2006

Hi Mike
thanks for these comments and especially thanks for your remarks on the effort of trying to
produce a balanced picture of the current state of things in the IPCC Chapter 6. In fact ,
I know that it is already out of date and I am going to get particularly lambasted for not
discussing problems with recent tree responses to warming and potential problems wit CO2
fertilization - I may have to add even more text yet .You are absolutely correct that we
had unreasonable trouble from Susan , who was not as "hands off" as she might have been. I
will certainly study your comments carefully - as I always do . I would rather reserve
comment on the Crowley reconstruction til I speak personally to you. I really hope that we
can get an atmosphere of constructive discussion that , I believe, must include some
discussion of the sceptics . Look forward to those drinks and some time away from the mad
house of teaching/exam marking etc. See you soon
best wishes
Keith
At 18:08 24/05/2006, you wrote:

Hi Keith,
I wanted you to have an advance copy of the comments I'll be submitting on the final
draft of the AR4. I commend you for the excellent work you've done and the tough battle
I know you have had to fight. I don't envy it, and you know the tough battles I've been
through.
Confidentially, I do have a number of specific concerns mostly in the area of
discussions of where things actually now stand in terms of some of the earlier
criticisms. I believe that the discussion is still out of date, given what has been
shown in recent publications, including Wahl and Ammann (Science). Also, and I don't
think this is the only place you're going to hear this from, there are deep problems w/
Hegerl et al '06, particularly the claims of what TLS can do, which are egregiously
incorrect. There is a comment in review in Nature (not me, but I can promise you, by
someone who understands the statistical issues involved better than anyone else in our
community) that is very critical. I think its unwise for the TAR to uncritically accept
the claims made, particularly given that the actual J. Climate paper was in limbo at
least at the time the most recent draft was finalized. I believe that disqualifies it
for consideration for AR4, no?
Also, I think it is an absolute travesty that figure 6.10 isn't being shown in the SPM.
I think that is unforgiveable, and there should be an effort to over-ride that decision
(I would suspect that is Susan Solomon's doing?),
I hope we can discuss these things (and much else) over a few beers in Switzerland.
Looking forward to seeing you soon,
mike
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University email: [1]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013

[2]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm


--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.

Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

References

1. mailto:mann@psu.edu
2. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
3. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

No comments:

Post a Comment