Edward Cook tells Phil Jones that Mike Mann is “serious enemy” and “vindictive”. Mike Mann had criticized his work.
Apparently Mann went “a little crazy” over a paper showing the Medeival Warm Period exists.
date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 23:56:46 -0500
from: “email@example.com” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
subject: RE: CCDD
Thanks for the added info. If Mike said that my calibration procedure is
“flawed”, I will be extremely pissed off. His grad student just submitted a
paper to The Holocene, with Mike and I as co-authors, that compares my
point-by-point method with his RegEM method (Keith should have received the
paper by now). There are “modest” improvements in some areas using RegEM,
but overall the two methods produce statistically identical results on a
Indeed, it is mentioned in the paper that the P-B-P method
could be improved by adding a dynamic search radius for each grid point,
thus making it even closer to RegEM and maybe even better. Indeed, the
P-B-P method produces classical calibration period information and
estimates that are very useful in understanding the fitted models. In
contrast, RegEM does not produce any such useful information and thus
operates much more as a “black box”.
Re standardization and low-frequency stuff, the vast majority of the
tree-ring chronologies have been standardized to preserve variance at least
up to 100 years (and generally more). I also agree with you that PDSI ought
not to have a great deal of multi-centennial variability because it is
dominated by precipitation, which is dominated by high-frequency, nearly
white, variance. I am surprised that Tom Karl does not seem to understand
In all candor now, I think that Mike is becoming a serious enemy in the way
that he bends the ears of people like Tom with words like “flawed” when
describing my work and probably your and Keith’s as well. This is in part a
vindictive response to the Esper et al. paper. He also went crazy over my
recent NZ paper describing evidence for a MWP there because he sees it as
another attack on him. Maybe I am over-reacting to this, but I don’t think
From: Phil Jones email@example.com
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 16:17:30 +0000
Subject: RE: CCDD
There isn’t that much more I can expand on really. Conversation only
last 5 minutes.
Probably you need to add how standardization done and any impact on
low-freq of you calibration with your AR-1 process (pre-whitening).
Why Tom and others thought there should be a lot of low-freq is odd? I
don’t think there will be much in a PDSI series.
By the way Mark also presented your in progress work with the
enhanced grid and the work NCDC was doing to create the PDSI grid at 2 by 3 for you. May have got the wrong end of what they were doing here, but I got the impression that
Mark at NCDC-West and NCDC itself were helping you through your CCDD project.
The only person worth discussing this with is Mike Mann, who may be
able to expand on what I said. He can at least say why your calibration process is
flawed (in his mind).
I was saying all your trees were very carefully and consistently
standardized and you’d retained as much low-freq as possible. I hope you have ! I could find out from the paper
I presume, but I don’t have the time !
I now clasp my hands and bow in the buddhist way !
At 05:53 07/11/02 -0500, you wrote:
>This is probably the first message you have received from Bhutan. I am here
>now with Paul sorting out mainly political issues for doing a lot of
>sampling here next year.
>Thanks for the heads-up on the low-frequency stuff. I return home on Nov 11
>and will deal with it as best I can. Any more inside info from you will
>also be appreciated.
>From: Phil Jones firstname.lastname@example.org
>Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 10:36:51 +0000
> Just got back from the CCDD panel meeting. An issue arose outside the
>main sessions, so
> although important it is only scientific !
> Mark Eakin gave a presentation which showed how they have used your
>PDSI recons to
> show droughts back 500-1000 years for parts of the US. All on a web
>which has come
> about from Mark’s group being part of NCDC.
> All is well but Tom Karl said he was suspicious of the
>as we all know
> trees lose low-frequency. I was trying to defend you but them Mike Mann
> pre-whitening recon method won’t get low freq. My view is that you
>probably need some
> text up on the site to say what the truth is. It may be there, but it
>needs to be more
> prominent. All Mark said was that they carefully scaled your recons with
> PDSI. Mark certainly needs to note when presenting something.
> My other view is that PDSI may not have much low freq and it is also
>one sided – trees
> don’t respond to heavy precip, beyond a certain limit.
> I can expand more if you want, but I have a mountain of email to go
>through from being
> away, but I’m sure you get the points.
> To some extent Keith, you and me have all oversold the tree/low-freq
>thing and now
> everyone believes it but don’t appreciate it applies to all other
>high-freq proxies to a
> similar extent, but in different guises.
>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 email@example.com
>mail2web – Check your email from the web at
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 xxxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email firstname.lastname@example.org
mail2web – Check your email from the web at