date: Wed May 12 12:17:51 2004 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: Jones and Mann (2004) Figure 4 Top Panel to: mann@virginia.edu, Scott Rutherford Mike and Scott, If the figures below don't come out, they are McIntyre's versions of the series in the W. N. American panel of Fig 4 of the RoG article and then ours (which he must have got from a pdf). Just told him that the reason your MBH (back 200) differs is that we've renormalised each series over 1751-1950. This look as though it will work. In the light of his email I've just produced files for Figs 4, 6 and 7. I'm off tomorrow - basically until May 28. When I get back I'd like to add the Fig 3, 5 and 8 data and put it all on the CRU web site. I emailed Caspar, Hans and Tas to make sure all agree. Only Tas wanted his series not to be there, so I've removed it and put his web page there instead. Attached a couple of the files to show you what I've done. I'll remove the strings of missing data from some of the files where I can do this. I just printed the files from the plotting program to give smoothed and unsmoothed (but after any manipulation as in Figs 4, 6 and 7) series from 1 to 2000/1. I suggest for Fig 8 you do something similar - just give anoms and smoothed anoms (i.e all wrt 1961-90). I'll put up some text on the web site to say read the paper for anything else ! Cheers Phil From: "Steve McIntyre" To: "Phil Jones" Cc: "Tim Osborn" Subject: Jones and Mann (2004) Figure 4 Top Panel Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 17:03:03 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH LOGIN at fep04-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com from [65.49.25.138] using ID at Tue, 11 May 2004 17:01:30 -0400 X-UEA-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-UEA-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-UEA-MailScanner-SpamScore: s Dear Phil, I have read your very interesting article in Review of Geophysics and was hoping that you would be able to assist me in interpreting the top panel of Figure 4. I produced the figure below (smoothed with a 50 year gaussian filter ends padded with mean values). (I'm not concerned for now with end-effects of padding) For the MBH North American PC1, I used the data at <[1]ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MBH98/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/BACKTO_500/pc01.out">. The FTP site does not have a directory for BACKTO_200, but Mann and Jones (2003) said that the PC1 was similar in the overlap period to the AD1000 PC1 so the same undoubtedly applies a fortiori to the AD500 PC1. While the exercise successfully reproduced the Jacoby, Briffa and Jasper series, the MBH PC1 is very different from that shown in Figure 4. Mann et al. (1998) is cited as the source for the AD200 PC1, although this series obviously does not appear in that publication. Can you provide information on the calculation of the NOAMER PC1 illustrated in Jones and Mann(2004) and why it differs so significantly from the series at Mann's FTP site? Regards, Steve McIntyre ed0001.jpg ed0110.jpg 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 p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------