To: "Keith Briffa" <email@example.com>
Subject: RE: confidential
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 13:02:44 -0400
Thanks so much for the chance to look over this section. I think the long section you added on pp 6-5 and 6-6 reads well, and makes good sense according to what I know. Indeed, reading the whole section is a good review for me!
I suggested addition of a phrase in lines 32-33 on page 6-3 regarding MM 2003 and analysis of it by Wahl-Ammann 2006. I also suggest a (logically useful) change from singular to plural in line 42 of that page. The changes are in RED/BOLD font.
[I should note that AW 2006 is still in "in press" status, and its exact publication date will be affected by publication of an editorial designed to go with it that Caspar and I are submitting this weekend. Thus I cannot say it is certain this article will come out in 2006, but its final acceptance for publication as of 2/28/06 remains completely solid.]
Also, I added the full information for the Wahl-Ritson-Ammann 2006 Science article in the references section, also in RED/BOLD font.
By the way, is the "AJS" NCAR-CSM model in Fig. 6-13 the one Caspar did? I couldn't tell this for sure from the information in the text. If it is, perfect. If not, is there a way to include his millenium run?
Thanks to you and all the authors for you painstaking work.
Dr. Eugene R. Wahl
Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies
1 Saxon Drive
Alfred, NY 14802
From: Keith Briffa [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Mon 7/31/2006 10:29 AM
To: Wahl, Eugene R
Subject: RE: confidential
First Gene - let me say that I never intended that you should spend
so much time on this - though I really appreciate your take on these
points. The one you highlight here - correctly warns me that in
succumbing to the temptation to be lazy in the sense of the brief
answer that I have provided - I do give an implied endorsement of
the sense of the whole comment. This is not, of course what I
intended. I simply meant to agree that some reference to the
"divergence" issue was necessitated . I will revise the reply to say
briefly that I do not agree with the interpretation of the reviewer.
I am attaching what I have done (see blue highlighting) to the
section in response to comments (including the addition of the needed
extra section on the "tree-ring issues" called for by several
people). I have had no feedback yet on this as it has not been
generally circulated , but thought you might like to see it. PLEASE
REMEMBER that this is "for your eyes only " . Please do NOT feel that
I am asking /expecting you to go through this in any detail - but
given the trouble you have taken,I thought it reasonable to give
you a private look. Cheers
At 07:16 27/07/2006, you wrote:
>Here is the text with my comments. I will go over the "stolen"
>parts (highlighted in blue outline) for a final time tomorrow
>morning, but I wanted to get this to you ASAP. The main new point I
>have to make is added in bold/blue font on pp. 101-103. I question
>the way the response to the comment there is currently worded, as it
>seems to imply that the divergence issue really does invalidate any
>dendro-based reconstructions before about 1850--which I imagine is
>not what you would like to say. I give a series of arguments
>against this as a general conclusion. Maybe I got over-bold in
>doing so, as in my point (1) I'm examining issues that are at the
>very core of your expertise! Excuse me that one, but I decided to
>jump in anyway. Let me know if I got it wrong in any way!
>There are other quite minor suggestions (mostly focused on
>referencing other responses in a few places) that are also in
>bold/blue. These go on into the "120's" in terms of page numbers.
>This is really a lot of work you've taken on, and I REALLY
>appreciate what you and the others are doing!
>[I've also been a lot involved with helping to get a person from the
>Pew Center for Global Climate Change ready to testify in front of
>the House Energy and Environment Committee tomorrow. That is why I
>couldn't get this done and sent to you earlier today. Send Mike
>Mann and Jay Gulledge (Pew Center) all good thoughts for strength and clarity.]
>NB -- "r" towards the end of the filename stands for my middle initial.
>Dr. Eugene R. Wahl
>Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies
>1 Saxon Drive
>Alfred, NY 14802
>From: Keith Briffa [mailto:email@example.com]
>Sent: Mon 7/24/2006 3:16 PM
>To: Wahl, Eugene R
>Subject: RE: confidential
>here is where I am up to now with my responses (still a load to do) -
>you can see that I have "borrowed (stolen)" from 2 of your responses
>in a significant degree - please assure me that this OK (and will not
>later be obvious) hopefully.
>You will get the whole text(confidentially again ) soon. You could
>also see that I hope to be fair to Mike - but he can be a little
>unbalanced in his remarks sometime - and I have had to disagree with
>his interpretations of some issues also.
>Please do not pass these on to anyone at all.
>Will pass all comments to you before they are fixed in stone- nothing
>from review article will be mentioned.
>Really grateful to you - thanks
>At 05:08 22/07/2006, you wrote:
> >Hi Keith:
> >Glad to help. (!)
> >If I could get a chance to look over the sections of my text you
> >would post to the comments before you do, I would appreciate it. If
> >this is a burden/problem let me know and we'll work it out.
> >If it is anything from the Wahl-Ammann paper, of course that is fine
> >to use at once since it is publicly available. There will only be
> >exceedingly minor/few changes in the galleys, including a footnote
> >pointing to the extended RE benchmarking analysis contained in the
> >Ammann-Wahl review article.
> >What I am concerned about for the time being is that nothing in the
> >review article shows up anywhere. It is just going in, and
> >confidentiality is important. The only exception to this are the
> >points I make in my blue comments in the big review file on page
> >104, concerning the MM way of benchmarking the RE statistic. Those
> >comments are fine to repeat at this point. [Please excuse my
> >hesitance in this way.]
> >Actually, all the other blue comments I made in the big review file
> >are also fine to use at once.
> >Again, if this request is in any way a problem, let me know and
> >we'll figure out something.
> >Peace, Gene
> >Dr. Eugene R. Wahl
> >Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies
> >Alfred University
> >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> >Sent: Fri 7/21/2006 2:00 PM
> >To: Wahl, Eugene R
> >Subject: RE: confidential
> >your comments have been really useful and reassuring that I am not
> >doing MM a disservice. I will use some sections of your text in my
> >comments that will be eventually archived so hope this is ok with
> >you. I will keep the section in the chapter very brief - but will
> >cite all the papers to avoid claims of bias. I really would like to
> >discuss the whole issue of the reconstruction differences at a later
> >, less stressful time. I completely accept the arguments about the
> >limitation in the r2 and the value of capturing longer-term variance
> >. I think I will have to stop now as the temp and humidity are killing here.
> >Thanks a lot again
> >At 18:39 21/07/2006, you wrote:
> > >Hi Keith:
> > >
> > >I'm sorry that there is a bit to digest...although I know it is just
> > >a result of the nature of things.
> > >
> > >By the way, copied below is a synopsis that I sent this morning to a
> > >person in DC who is working on all this with regard to the House of
> > >Representative hearings. Evidently, there is to be at least one
> > >more hearing next week, and Mike Mann will go. The person I sent
> > >this to is trying to understand the importance of the proxy PC
> > >issues --especially how, no matter what way the PC extraction is
> > >done, the reconstructions converge if the structures actually
> > >present in the data are not tossed out by truncating the number
> > >retained PCs at a too low level. What I've copied is this
> > >synopsis. I think it is straightforward -- maybe a bit dense, but
> > >at least brief.
> > >
> > >Also, let me know if I can help on the issue of RE vs r^2. I could
> > >write a few brief sentences as something for you to look at if you
> > >would like. Wahl-Ammann show very clearly that there is objectively
> > >demonstrated skill at the low-frequency level of the verification
> > >period mean for all the MBH segments, although the earlier MBH
> > >segments do have really low r^2 values (indicating very little skill
> > >at the interannual level). Our argument that to throw out the
> > >reconstruction completely based on the fastest varying frequency,
> > >when it has objectively demonstrable meaning at lower frequencies,
> > >is to me quite reasonable. That it is some how entirely ad hoc, as
> > >McIntyre claims in one (more?) of his comments, is neither logical
> > >nor factual in my perspective. The idea of frequency dependent
> > >skill/non-skill is not new to the literature, and the independent
> > >re-reviewer that Steve Schneider had look over Wahl-Ammann said s/he
> > >had experienced this issue in his/her work. G.
> > >
> > >
> > >****************************** COPIED TEXT ******************************
> > >
> > >What it boils down to in the end is as follows:
> > >
> > >1) The different reference periods used to calculate proxy PCs from
> > >N. America (calibration only for MBH, full period for MM) only have
> > >the effect of re-arranging how the hockey stick shape appears across
> > >the rank ordering of PCs. In MBH it is concentrated in PC1. In the
> > >full-period method, it is spread over PCs 1 and 2. If one adds PCs
> > >1 and 2 (either arithmetically or as vectors) from either
> > >convention, you get an essentially IDENTICAL time series, only the
> > >amplitudes are a bit different. [Note that the input data were
> > >centered AND standardized before being put into the PC calculation
> > >algorithm. This is important, as shown below.]
> > > WHEN ACTUALLY USED IN THE RECONSTRUCTION, THE DIFFERENCE
> > > IS MINISCULE -- MBH is colder over 1400-1449 by 0.05 degrees!
> > >
> > >2) IF the data are centered but NOT standardized and are input into
> > >in a PCA algorithm using the variance-covariance matrix and not the
> > >correlation matrix (the way MM did it), then the hockey stick shape
> > >shows up in PC4. MM in fact reported this first in their 2005
> > >Energy and Environment article. In effect, the first two PCs are
> > >ARE ACTING TO DO THE STANDARDIZING OF THE DATA not done as a
> > >pre-processing step. [When the correlation matrix is used instead
> > >in the PCA algorithm, then the standardization is in effect done by
> > >the algorithm, because all the correlations are "standardized" by
> > >construction--they all range between 0 and 1.]
> > > When 4 PCs from this calculation method are used rather
> > > than 2 PCs calculated as above, then the RECONSTRUCTION CONVERGES
> > > TO THE SAME AS ABOVE.
> > >
> > >3) Thus, all the different "flavors" for PC extraction have
> > >essentially no effect on reconstruction when one does the exercise
> > >of adding PCs sequentially from 2 to 5 for any flavor. In the case
> > >of (1), the reconstructions converge by the second PC. In the case
> > >of (2), they converge by PC4. They don't change with higher order
> > PCs added.
> > > THIS SHOULD BE EXPECTED FROM FIRST PRINCIPLES. That is,
> > > the same underlying information is there in all cases, it is only
> > > how the structures present in these data are spread across the rank
> > > order of PCs, as explained. The simple exercise of taking the
> > > reconstructions to convergence across the number of PCs used shows
> > > this clearly.
> > >
> > >4) In fact, MM essentially say all this in the 2005 EE
> > >article--INCLUDING ABOUT THE RECONSTRUCTION RESULTS -- but they
> > >strongly claim that the movement of the hockey stick shape to the
> > >4th PC shows it is not a leading pattern of variance as MBH claim,
> > >and thus should not be used. This might be logical if their
> > >analysis was an apples-apples comparison, but it is not, due to the
> > >PCA method they use and applying it on NON-standardized data.
> > > THESE TWO DIFFERENCES (which one can only fully get
> > > from their actual code, not in the articles published) DRIVE THEIR
> > > ENTIRE ARGUMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. What they do not say is
> > > that convergence to something like the MBH result is expectable,
> > > and indeed MUST happen given the data used, because the hockey
> > > stick shape is actually IN the data, it is NOT an artifact of PC
> > > calculation procedure.
> > >
> > >
> > >5) FINALLY, note that all of this rests on the foundation that
> > >keeping the bristlecone pine records in the data is appropriate,
> > >which Caspar and I find can be reasonable presumption. If one
> > >believes that the bristlecone data should be removed, then the
> > >1400-1449 reconstruction does not pass verification testing with the
> > >RE statistic, and the MBH reconstruction should commence from 1450 on out.
> > >
> > >Although there are a number of reasons to keep the bristlecone data
> > >in, maybe the most compelling reason they are a NON-ISSUE is that,
> > >over the common period of overlap (1450-1980), the reconstruction
> > >based on using them from 1400-1980 is very close to the
> > >reconstruction based on omitting them from 1450-1980. Since the
> > >issues about the bristlecone response to climate are primarily about
> > >1850 onwards, especially 1900 onwards [KEITH -- PLEASE LET ME KNOW
> > >IF I AM NOT ACCURATE IN THIS], there is no reason to expect that
> > >their behavior during 1400-1449 is in any way anomalous to their
> > >behavior from 1450-1850. Thus, THERE IS NO REASON TO THINK THAT THE
> > >BRISTLECONES ARE SOMEHOW MAKING THE 1400-1449 SEGMENT OF THE MBH
> > >RECONSTRUCTION BE INAPPROPRIATELY SKEWED.
> > >
> > >
> > >****************************** END OF COPIED TEXT *******************
> > >
> > >Peace, Gene
> > >Dr. Eugene R. Wahl
> > >Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies
> > >Alfred University
> > >
> > >607-871-2604
> > >1 Saxon Drive
> > >Alfred, NY 14802
> > >
> > >________________________________
> > >
> > >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:email@example.com]
> > >Sent: Fri 7/21/2006 4:51 AM
> > >To: Wahl, Eugene R
> > >Subject: RE: confidential
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Gene
> > >thanks a lot for this - I need to digest and I will come back to you.
> > >
> > >thanks again
> > >Keith
> >Professor Keith Briffa,
> >Climatic Research Unit
> >University of East Anglia
> >Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
> >Phone: +44-1603-593909
> >Fax: +44-1603-507784
>Professor Keith Briffa,
>Climatic Research Unit
>University of East Anglia
>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Ch06_SOD_Text_TSU_FINAL_2000_25jul06KRB-FJ-RV_ERW_suggestions.doc"