Climategate reloaded/MWP

Die neuen Mails enthalten viele Aussagen zur MWP und Wissenschaftern, welche sich positiv zur Begrifflichkeit und/oder deren Ausdehnung äußerten.

Broecker veröffentlichte 2001 in Science einen Artikel, in welchem er die Frage aufwarf, ob die MWP global gewesen ist - Was the Medieval Warm Period Global? Die Reaktionen blieben nicht aus (Hervorhebungen von mir). 

Email Nr. 0983196231

From: "Michael E. Mann" 
To: Phil Jones Subject: Re: Wally
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 09:03:51 -0500
Cc: mhughes@[gel. W.v.B.], tom crowley ,  rbradley@[gel. W.v.B.], 
tom@[gel. W.v.B.], k.briffa@[gel. W.v.B.],  t.osborn@[gel. W.v.B.],
 mann@[gel. W.v.B.]

Dear Phil,

Thanks for your response. I agree that I think these folks just don't quite
seem to get it! Anyways, I've pasted in the text of Broecker's piece below
(everything there but the figure. Trust me, the figure isn't worth looking
at anyways). Will be very interested to hear your thoughts after reading
this...

mike

PALEOCLIMATE:
 Was the Medieval Warm Period Global?
[Broeckers Arbeit wird vollständig angeführt, gel. von mir]


At 12:04 PM 2/26/01 +0000, Phil Jones wrote:
>
>  Dear All,
>       I was away over the weekend at Bowdoin College in Maine, giving a 
>talk about the
>  last 1000 years. There were three others as well on other paleo aspects, 
>Richard Alley,
>  Gary Clow and Wally Broecker !  The latter briefly mentioned to me that 
>he had had
>  something in last Friday's Science, which was getting at the Mann et al. 
>series. He
>  didn't have a copy so we've not seen it here yet.  I tried to get a copy 
>of Science on
>  the bookstand at Logan airport last night - I guess it's not sold that
way !
>      Wally was going on about this 1500 yr cycle of Bond's, which seemed 
>pretty flimsy.
>  I was showing all the various series in a general talk - and I used some 
>of the overheads
>  from the upcoming Science paper. This is due to appear in the issue for 
>the last week
>  of April. It is all accepted now.  I will forward if you'll all abide by 
>the Science rules. Both
>  Wally and Alley seem convinced that the climate of Greenland changed by 
>10 C in
>  the space of 2-3 years at times in the past (Y Dryas etc).  I had long 
>talks with both
>  and they don't seem to have got their heads around spatial scales (local 
>changes
>  and hemispheric). Also they don't seem to realise where we are coming 
>from.  He
>  has a downer on trees (believes all the multiproxy series depend 
>exclusively on
>  trees) but he thinks Ed Cook is a great scientist. The latter is true, 
>but he might
>  just think that because he's at Lamont. I did tell him that Keith's paper 
>on the age
>  banding is out in JGR. I should send him a reprint and maybe ask that great
>  scientist to go and explain it to him ! Ed's in NZ at the moment. Also 
>Wally believes
>  much more in glacier advances/retreats. I'll get Keith to send him 
>Sarah's paper
>  where the long Tornetrask reconstruction is shown to agree with
Storglaciaren
>  advance/retreat dates from moraine evidence. Also Sarah's been working on 
>similar
>  glaciers in the Swiss Alps with long tree-ring reconstructions.  One 
>interesting
>  thing was he didn't seem to realise that a lot of the tree-ring 
>reconstructions use
>  density. Seemed to think they were all ring widths and there had to be 
>moisture
>  changes we were not accounting for.
>        It is easy to respond to a Perspectives piece. Some of you did it 
>with respect to
>  one of mine. I'm not sure it will achieve much - it won't come out before 
>the paper
>  in the last week of April.  I need to wait to se what he says. Our paper 
>(me, Tim and
>  Keith) clearly says that the MWP couldn't have been warmer (for the NH 
>average)
>  than the late 20th century.
>       Another possible reason for not doing anything is that the IPCC 
>report will be out
>  soon. The summary is written in pretty clear language.
>      The above is my first thoughts, not having read the piece and just 
>got off the
>  flight back.
>
>      Best to ignore Woijcek. All he seems to want to do is deflect us into 
>responding.
>
>  Cheers
>  Phil
>
>
>
>At 11:47 25/02/01 -0700, mhughes@[gel. W.v.B.] wrote:
>>Dear all,
>>WHat mechanism does "Science" have for repsonding to Perspective pieces?
Most
>>of the answer to Wally is contained within his own piece - he comments on
the
>>ambiguity of the record, which, in various ways, we have all done. What he
>>doesn't offer, however, is anything other than an anecdotal alternative. As
>>always, he seeks to damn ( in this case with faint praise) the records or 
>>work
>>that don't serve his purpose , and to elevate any scrap of evidence that
does
>>serve it. I think it will be important for us to stick closely to what we 
>>have
>>written in published papers. CHeers, MAlcolm
>>
>>Quoting "Michael E. Mann" :
>>
>> > Dear Phil, Ray,
>> >
>> > What do you guys think. If we're all on board, than an appropriately
>> > toned,
>> > "high road" response here might be appropriate. We don't want to engage
>> > Wally in a personal battle, but simply should correct the record where
>> > Wally has muddied it. Again, Phil et al do have a Science article in
>> > press
>> > that serves this purpose to some extent, so I'm especially interested in
>> > what
>> > Phil thinks (Phil?)...
>> >
>> > mike
>> >
>> > At 02:52 PM 2/24/01 -0700, mhughes@[W.v.B.] wrote:
>> > >Dear Mike et al., I think we should definitely let Wojick stew in his
>> > own
>> > >juice - as Mike pointed out to me the other day he, and his like, have
>> > a
>> > >specific agenda, and anything we write will be pressed into the service
>> > of
>> > that
>> > >agenda. I'm not so sure about Wally. I share Tom's disinclination to
>> > get
>> > into a
>> > >street fight with Wally - generally I take the view that life's too
>> > short and
>> > >uncertain for such activities. On the other hand, would we let such a
>> > shoddy
>> > >piece of work(and editing) go by if it were from another author? There
>> > are so
>> > >many holes in Wally's argument, and such a selective choice of evidence
>> > that it
>> > >should beggar belief. One of the more obvious holes is that he writes
>> > of the
>> > >Great Basin droughts of the 10th through 14th centuries as proof of
>> > warmer
>> > >conditions then, but doesn't explain why we don't have such conditions
>> > now.
>> > >Interestingly, Larry Benson, Dave Meko and others have good evidence
>> > that
>> > these
>> > >same multidecadal periods were marked by a great excess of
>> > precipitation
>> > just a
>> > >few hundred miles north in northern Nevada and California and southern
>> > Oregon.
>> > >He just hasn't grasped that the methods that are appropriate for
>> > tracking the
>> > >consequences of major changes in boundary conditions don't work in the
>> > late
>> > >Holocene. I've been trying to figure out the issue of "Was there a
>> > Medieval
>> > >Warm Period, and if so where and when" for a decade or so, and still
>> > have the
>> > >impression that the records for the 9th through 14th centuries are
>> > extremely
>> > >mixed. But then, I didn't come to the investigation with a certain
>> > knowledge of
>> > >the absolute truth, and have had to 'misfortune' to work with people
>> > who let
>> > >careful analysis get in the way - Henry Diaz, Ray and Mike, and others.
>> >
>> > >Anyway, the point of this rant is that I think we should give careful
>> > >consideration to making a measured response to Wally. Cheers, Malcolm
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >Quoting "Michael E. Mann" :
>> > >
>> > >> Hi Tom,
>> > >>
>> > >> Thanks for your quick reply. I agree with you entirely. I think its
>> > very
>> > >> unfortunate he's chosen to disinform the community rather than engage
>> > in
>> > >> a
>> > >> constructive dialogue (we tried the latter w/ him in a series of
>> > emails
>> > >> last
>> > >> year, but clearly to no avail).
>> > >>
>> > >> On the other hand, think that a war of words w/ Broecker would be
>> > >> exploited
>> > >> by the skeptics, and perhaps we should just try to let this thing
>> > die...
>> > >>
>> > >> I'm not sure. I'd appreciate knowing what others think?
>> > >>
>> > >> mike
>> > >>
>> > >> At 10:25 AM 2/24/01 -0600, tom crowley wrote:
>> > >> >Mike,
>> > >> >
>> > >> >I was not aware of the Broecker piece - I am dismayed but not
>> > >> surprised.  I
>> > >> >do not know what to do - I personally cannot stand the combative
>> > >> personal
>> > >> >approach Broecker relishes but it does seem as if some rebuttal is
>> > >> called
>> > >> >for.  Maybe you Ray Phil I and Malcolm could pen a response - we are
>> > >> >heading to Germany in a week, for a month, so I am not sure how much
>> > I
>> > >> can
>> > >> >keep up on this but it seems as if some response is called for.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >What think ye?
>> > >> >
>> > >> >Tom
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >>Dear Mike,
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>Thanks for passing this along.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>Wojick of course completely misrepresents Broecker, and puts his
>> > >> >>conventional intellectually dishonest spin on this.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>That having been said, it is a bit disappointing that Wally
>> > continues
>> > >> to
>> > >> >>cling to some of his flawed beliefs which aren't supported from
>> > either
>> > >> our
>> > >> >>best current understanding of the observations or of the results of
>> > >> careful
>> > >> >>modeling experiments. My own perception is that the climate
>> > community,
>> > >> >>modelers as well as observationalists, simply don't take seriously
>> > >> anymore
>> > >> >>the idea that the history of climate change over the past 1000
>> > years
>> > >> is
>> > >> >>part of an internal oscillation. The sediment core evidence oft
>> > cited
>> > >> by
>> > >> >>Broecker (e.g. Bond et al) for this is tremendously weak, and I, as
>> > >> well as
>> > >> >>the vast majority of my colleagues, simply don't buy it for even a
>> > >> second.
>> > >> >>But people don't like to challenge Broecker publically. He can and
>> > >> will
>> > >> >>play hardball.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>There is an odd irony. Broecker refused to accept the modeling
>> > >> evidence
>> > >> >>that the 100 kyr ice age Pleistocene variations were part of an
>> > >> internal
>> > >> >>oscillation paced by insolation variations, favoring instead the
>> > >> >>discredited notion that they were a direct response to (too weak)
>> > >> >>eccentricity forcing, until the evidence became insurmountable
>> > (from
>> > >> my
>> > >> >>adviser, Barry Saltzman, may he rest in piece, and people like Dick
>> > >> >>Peltier). Ironically, Broecker then took credit for the very
>> > >> proposition he
>> > >> >>had fought w/ tooth and nail.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>Broecker is even more wrong, and unfortunately equally stubborn, in
>> > >> this case.
>> > >> >>And, again, the reason: because his pet theory, that climate
>> > >> variability is
>> > >> >>a simple millennial oscillation, is finally being challenged w/
>> > hard
>> > >> data
>> > >> >>and hard facts.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>Broecker misrepresents the nature of that data that we and others
>> > have
>> > >> >>used, and misunderstands the source of the muted hemispheric trends
>> > >> (there
>> > >> >>*is* a hemispheric "medieval warm period" and "little ice age",
>> > just
>> > >> not of
>> > >> >>the magnitude or the distinctiveness that Broecker imagines).
>> > >> Individual
>> > >> >>regions in our reconstructions, and Phils, and others, vary by
>> > several
>> > >> >>degrees C, ie, the proxies we use have no problem whatsoever in
>> > >> resolving
>> > >> >>high-amplitude temperature variations in the past. The problem is
>> > that
>> > >> when
>> > >> >>we look at  the different regions we find that periods of cold and
>> > >> warm
>> > >> >>often occur at very different times in different regions, and so in
>> > a
>> > >> >>hemispheric or global average, a lot of purely regional variability
>> > >> cancels
>> > >> >>out. The resulting trends are somewhat smaller. I remained
>> > befuddled
>> > >> as to
>> > >> >>why Wally doesn't understand this point. Its been explained to him
>> > >> time and
>> > >> >>time again. Maybe he's just not listening, or doesn't want to
>> > >> listen...
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>In fact, Tom Crowley has clearly shown that the observed millennial
>> > >> >>temperature reconstruction is precisely consistent w/ our
>> > >> understanding of
>> > >> >>*forced* climate change over the past 1000 years (solar changes,
>> > >> volcancic
>> > >> >>output, and recent greenhouse gas concentrations). There is, simply
>> > >> put, no
>> > >> >>room for a global millennial internal oscillation. Regionally, such
>> > >> types
>> > >> >>of climate phenomena, associated for example with changes in the
>> > North
>> > >> >>Atlantic ocean circulation, are supported by the observations. This
>> > >> >>explains why, for example, European temperature variations are
>> > >> somewhat
>> > >> >>larger than those in other regions not effected so strongly by such
>> > >> climate
>> > >> >>processes.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>Other recent perspectives, by Ray Bradley and myself provide a far
>> > >> more
>> > >> >>balanced and nuanced (and less dogmatic or defensive) viewpoint.
>> > I'm
>> > >> not
>> > >> >>sure a written response to Broecker is worthwhile (this is,
>> > afterall,
>> > >> a
>> > >> >>"perspective" and everyone understands that a scientist may have a
>> > >> flawed
>> > >> >>perspective). If Wally wants this to be his legacy, so be it...
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>Phil and others have a review article coming out in the near future
>> > >> which
>> > >> >>also provides a much more balanced perspective on the climate
>> > changes
>> > >> of
>> > >> >>the past millennium, and will set the record straight once again
>> > (good
>> > >> >>timing Phil!). Science's embargo policy prevents me from saying
>> > much
>> > >> more
>> > >> >>at this time, but if Phil or anyone else wishes to comment further,
>> > >> I'd
>> > >> >>encourage it.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>Well, I've still got some snow to shovel here in Charlottesville!
>> > >> Happy
>> > >> >>weekend to all,
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>mike
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>p.s. For those with electronic subscriptions, Broecker's latest
>> > piece
>> > >> can
>> > >> >>be found here:
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> PALEOCLIMATE:
>> > >> >>        Was the Medieval Warm Period Global?
>> > >> >>        Wallace S. Broecker
>> > >> >>        Science Feb 23 2001: 1497-1499. [Summary] [Full Text]
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5508/1497
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>While my previous perspective piece is here:
>> > >> >>   CLIMATE CHANGE:
>> > >> >>   Lessons for a New Millennium
>> > >> >>   Michael E. Mann
>> > >> >>   Science 2000 July 14; 289: 253-254. (in Perspectives) [Summary]
>> > >> [Full
>> > >> >>Text]
>> > >> >>URL:
>> > >>
>> > >>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/289/5477/253?maxtoshow=&HIT 
>> S=10&h
>> > >>
>> > >>its=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=Mann&searchid=QID_NOT_SET&stored_search=& 
>> FIRSTI
>> > >> >>NDEX=&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=2/28/2001
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>and Bradley's is here:
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>   PALEOCLIMATE: Enhanced: 1000 Years of Climate Change
>> > >> >>   Ray Bradley
>> > >> >>   Science 2000 May 26; 288: 1353-1355. (in Perspectives) [Summary]
>> > >> [Full
>> > >> >>Text]
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>URL:
>> > >>
>> > >>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/288/5470/1353?maxtoshow=&HI 
>> TS=10&
>> > >>
>> > >>hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=Bradley&searchid=QID_NOT_SET&stored_sear 
>> ch=&FI
>> > >> >>RSTINDEX=&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=2/28/2001
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>>Dear Michael--The third point below has comments on the
>> > controversy
>> > >> >>>betweenyou and Broecker--I'd be interested in your response (did
>> > >> Wally not
>> > >> >>>just understand what your data show?).
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>>Mike
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>>Three Wojick Pieces on Climate Change.
>> > >> >>>I've been busy busy.
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>>David
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>>FIRST, the latest issue of Insight Magazine includes a
>> > >> point-counterpoint
>> > >> >>>between measly old me and the great Robert Watson. Boy has he got
>> > >> >>>credentials! Too bad he's wrong.
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>>Symposium: Do scientists have compelling evidence of global
>> > warming?
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>>Yes: Rising sea levels worldwide and retreating Arctic glaciers
>> > are
>> > >> ominous
>> > >> >>>signs.
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>>By Robert T. Watson -- chairman of the UN Intergovernmental Panel
>> > on
>> > >> >>>Climate Change, chief scientist at the World Bank and former chief
>> > >> science
>> > >> >>>advisor to the Clinton White House.
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>>No: Despite the overheated rhetoric, there is no new evidence of
>> > >> warming
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>>By David E. Wojick -- covers climate policy for Electricity Daily
>> > and
>> > >> is a
>> > >> >>>science adviser to the Greening Earth Society
>> > >> >>>, as well as Undereditor of
>> > the
>> > >> >>>Washington Pest 
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>>SECOND, the February 15 Eco-logic on-line has published "The Black
>> > >> Hole of
>> > >> >>>Global Climate Government" by David Wojick, my detailed attack on
>> > the
>> > >> >>>Framework Convention on Climate Change. It includes a lot of the
>> > >> actual
>> > >> >>>treaty language.
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>>THIRD, here is a draft Electricity Daily article of mine. Seems
>> > I'm
>> > >> not the
>> > >> >>>only one who thinks the IPCC is nuts.
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>>Climate Guru Kicks The Hockey Stick
>> > >> >>>by David Wojick (dwojick@[gel. W.v.B.)
>> > >> >>> [gel. W.v.B.]
>> > >>_______________________________________________________________________
>> > >> >>                     Professor Michael E. Mann
>> > >> >>         [gel. W.v.B.]
>> > >>
>> > >>_______________________________________________________________________
>> > >> >>e-mail: mann@[gel. W.v.B.]  Phone: (804) [gel. W.v.B.]  FAX: (804)
>> > >> [gel. W.v.B.]
>> > >> >>       http://www.[gel. W.v.B.]
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >Thomas J.  Crowley
>> > >> >[gel. W.v.B.]
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > _______________________________________________________________________
>> > >>                     Professor Michael E. Mann
>> > >>            [gel.W.v.B.]
>> > >>
>> > _______________________________________________________________________
>> > >> e-mail: mann@[W.v.B.] Phone: (804)[gel. W.v.B.]  FAX: (804)
>> > [gel. W.v.B.]
>> > >>          http://www.[gel. W.v.B.]
>> >
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > _______________________________________________________________________
>> >                     Professor Michael E. Mann
>> >            [gel. W.v.B.]
>> > _______________________________________________________________________
>> > e-mail: [gel. W.v.B.]

>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>Prof. Phil Jones
>[gel. W.v.B.]
>UK 
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
     
>
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________
                     Professor Michael E. Mann
          [gel. W.v.B.]
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: [gel. W.v.B.]

Ich bin beruhigt, dass M. Mann der Meinung ist:

there
>> > >> >>*is* a hemispheric "medieval warm period" and "little ice age",

frage mich dann aber schon, warum er in seinen Publikationen immer von einer MCA spricht. Fraglich erscheint mir, dass eine wissenschaftliche Entgegnung im Kreis einer Gruppe, einer "Gang" angestrebt wird. Broecker hat eine andere wissenschaftliche Meinung, diese wird diskreditiert und versucht, gemeinsam

If we're all on board, than an appropriately
>> > toned,
>> > "high road" response here might be appropriate.

über die Autorität, dieser Meinung zu begegnen.

Email Nr. 0983286849

From: Phil Jones [gel. W.v.B.]
To: mann[gel. W.v.B.]
Subject: Fwd: RE: Science issue Feb 22/23
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:14:09 +0000
Cc: mhughes@[gel. W.v.B.],rbradley@[gel. W.v.B.],tom@[gel. W.v.B.], 
k.briffa@[gel.W.v.B.].osborn@[gel. W.v.B.]



  Mike et al,
      Sorry about the multiple sendings. I've forgotten my glasses and 
couldn't see I'd
  missed a comma.
      Another thing to point to is the special issue of Climatic Change by 
Astrid Ogilbie
  and Trausti Jonsson.  They point to the LIA not being very appropriate in 
Iceland.

  Cheers
  Phil




  Mike,
       So Julia handled it. Even she thought it was handwaving, but it 
passed the usual
  Science review process.  Obviously this isn't great as none of us got to 
review it. Odd
  that she didn't send it to one of us here as she knew we were writing the 
article she
  asked us to !  Anyway that is water under the bridge.
       As for authorship we have this article coming out so this rules us 
out.  Tom isn't
  keen and he's away.  Wally told me he didn't reckon Tom, so Tom has got 
the right
  vibes. Julia is asking us to go ahead and hinting at a joint response. 
One possibility is
  either you or Macolm taking the lead.  Malcom and Henry wrote the MWP 
piece in
  Climate Change in 94. Keith and I think something pointed about the MWP 
is the way
  to go. Could add in that even the two warming periods in the 20th century 
don't show
  warming everywhere - especially the early 20th century.
      Remember that we are all basically averaging long series together and 
if one site
  shows a big warming/cooling then the average will to a lesser extent. 
Also bring in
  a few of the papers where people have compared tree based reconstructions 
with
  glacial advances/retreats (eg Raper et al in J. Glaciology and Luckman et 
al in the
  Holocene. Also there are more in that Interhemispheric Linkages Book of 
Vera amd
  work by Ricardo Villalba and others).
      Basically need to point to a load of literature that we would expect 
someone writing
  an article of this type to be aware of. Also the North Atlantic isn't the 
last word in NH
  and global averages. Clearly said in Hughes and Diaz and papers therein.
      Also the latest IPCC report will use and reference the latest curves, 
but from
  1400 they are not that different from Bradley and Jones (1993), so why 
the fuss now.
  Clearly the MWP is the issue that has got a few worked up, but we have 
concluded
  nothing that couldn't have been gleaned in 1994. Maybe we're stating it 
more clearly
  now, but the recent warmth of the 1990s is a factor as well.

  Cheers
  Phil

>From: "Julia Uppenbrink" To: "Phil Jones" Subject: RE: Science issue Feb 22/23
>Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 17:05:45 -0000
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
>Importance: Normal
>
>Dear Phil
>
>Thanks for your message regarding Wally Broecker's Perspective. I am of
>course aware of this Perspective coming out - I did handle it - I realized
>that it was perhaps a bit handwaving in parts but I thought the message was
>interesting and the article passed the usual screening. But we are always
>open to criticism! So please do send a letter to us; you can send it
>directly to me, and you may cowrite it with Tom Crowley and Mike Mann or you
>can send separate letters (if the concerns overlap a lot then one letter is
>perhaps better than several). The letter will be handled through our letters
>department, and we will get a response from Wally plus possibly outside
>review before we make a decision to publish.
>
>I look forward to receiving your letter.
>
>Best wishes
>
>      Julia
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@[gel. W.v.B.]
>Sent: 26 February 2001 14:40
>To: Julia Uppenbrink
>Subject: Science issue Feb 22/23
>
>
>
> >
> >  Dear Julia,
>          I don't know if you have seen the Perspectives piece in last
>week's issue of
>   Science by Wally Broecker.  I guess it was nothing to do with you and it
>contains
>   several inaccuracies and sweeping statements. I accept it is a personal
>view
>   and I've not seen the issue yet , only a copy that I was ironically given
>by Wally
>   Broecker as we were both guest speakers at a meeting at Bowdoin College,
>ME
>   on Saturday. I got back this morning to Norwich.
>         I talked to Wally about it over the weekend and will send him a few
>reprints
>   pointing out a few of the things he should have read. Some things he
>states are just
>   wrong.
>         I don't want to change the article already accepted, but what are
>the possibilities
>   of writing a response to Wally's piece in a later issue. I've been
>contacted by a couple
>   of people in the US about Broecker's piece (Mike Mann and Tom Crowley),
>who are
>   quite unhappy about it and would like to respond. They both know about
>the invited
>   piece and wanted me to comment, hence my email to you. The invited piece
>does
>   address some of the issues, but not the link between high and low
>frequency
>   proxy series.
>
>   Best Regards
>   Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>Prof. Phil Jones
>Climatic Research Unit        Telephone [gel. W.v.B.]
>School of Environmental Sciences    Fax [gel. W.v.B.]
>University of East Anglia
>Norwich                          Email    p.jones[gel. W.v.B.]
>NR4 7TJ
>UK
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone [gel. W.v.B.]
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax [gel. W.v.B.]
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones[gel. W.v.B.]
NR4 7TJ
UK 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------                                                                                

 

Schön, dass Phil Jones dasselbe Argument gebraucht, welches ich im Artikel
Icing the Current Warm Period gebraucht habe:

even the two warming periods in the 20th century 
don't show
  warming everywhere - especially the early 20th century.
      Remember that we are all basically averaging long series together and 
if one site
  shows a big warming/cooling then the average will to a lesser extent.