Perhaps “padding” has some technical meaning?
From the Climategate 2.0 collection, Phil Jones writes to Ben Santer about the Michael Mann/hockey stick controversy:
Mike did pad his data a little at the ends and beginning to get common periods, but only by a maximum of 10 years. This would make little difference. You can just average the
lot and get pretty much the same result.
How much is “little difference”?
Read the e-mail exchange below.
date: Mon Nov 1 10:46:49 2004
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: pdf files from the Seattle meeting
to: Ben Santer
I saw the Muller article – the guy must have an agenda ! Mike used to respond to
sorts of things, quite vociferously, but has just given up recently as whatever he says
gets distorted and it appears he has no chance of convincing people.
The Mc/Mc article was reviewed by Nature and rejected. As far as I know Mike was
with it coming out and had a response drafted. Nature decided it wasn’t worth
Maybe Mike can tell you more – or you’re old sparring partner Heike Langenburg. Guess
not want to contact her !
I sent a load of files before leaving for Florence in an email to Tom. Most of them
about the von Storch et al paper. Hans was in Florence much to my surprise – I did go to
meeting for 1.5 days ! Mike has written a response to this paper and that is being
Science. It seems they do this before sending to the authors of the paper commented
Muller is just parroting the same garbage from the Mc/Mc web site. It is appalling
people do this, without even reading the papers. We had a small go at Mc/Mc in the
Rev. Geophys paper, but the reviewers of that paper thought it wasn’t that appropriate
as the Mc/Mc views were so off the wall and so wrong and so badly put.
For some reason Tom seems to think there is no smoke without fire and believes
is something in it all. He is wrong this time. If Mike is guilty of anything, it is
and too quickly when these things kept coming out. As I said he’s given up now.
Basic thing to point out in any assessment you make is that other groups have come to
very similar conclusions to MBH – namely Tom Crowley, Briffa et al, Jones et al. and
even Esper et al.
Mike did pad his data a little at the ends and beginning to get common periods, but
by a maximum of 10 years. This would make little difference. You can just average the
lot and get pretty much the same result. Mike has a paper coming out with many of us
in J. Climate – I’ll see if I can find this to forward. This shows the results if you take
data and Mike’s method you get much the same result as we got in our 2001 paper.
Scott Rutherford who works with Mike has made some mistakes – doesn’t seem to
feel for data I keep talking about ! He did put all the data into a file for Mc/Mc about
3 years ago.
They said they couldn’t deal with it as it was ascii and they asked Scott to put it into
yes they do things in this format ! Scott didn’t have much experience with Excel and
mistakes – data repeating or whatever. Instead of comparing with the Ascii files, they
that great paleo journal E&E that MBH had made mistakes.
Florence was good – only rained 2 days and we had a great time. Hope you can make
At 00:02 27/10/2004, you wrote:
It was great to see you in Seattle. Hopefully I will (finally!) get a chance to
visit CRU in 2005.
Sorry about the mistakes in the Powerpoint file. Most of the info in the file
came from other IDAG members, so I’m blameless in this particular case. The IDAG
talk in Seattle went pretty well, although Michael Ghil asked a rather inane
question at the end of it.
Ken Sperber, Karl and I were asked yesterday to provide the U.S. DOE with a
quick assessment of recent criticism of the Mann et al. temperature
reconstruction. The DOE’s focus was on a web article by Richard Muller, a
physics professor at U.C. Berkeley. Muller, in turn, based his criticism on the
unpublished web material of McIntyre and McKitrick. Muller is a member of the
DOE-funded “Jasons” group, so he’s a pretty big cheese. His web article was
absolutely appalling. He made no attempt to be balanced and fair. I’m really
dismayed that Mike has to put up with this kind of stuff…
Hope you and Ruth are having a good time in Florence.
With best regards,
Phil Jones wrote:
> Here’s the paper with Adrian (and diagrams separately) that has been
> accepted by
> JGR and also the ERA-40 report. Maybe they might be of use in some aspect
> of the
> CCSP report.
> Thanks for the ppt files you gave. A couple of things to correct you
> on. 1. The Atmos Obs
> chapter is #3 not #6. #6 is paleo and Keith is involved in that. Keith is
> due to write the bit
> on the last 1-2K years and I’ll be helping with that as I’m the link
> between the two chapters.
> 2. The Jones (2004) piece is about the very cold period of the 1740s –
> the biggest interdecade
> change in the CET record. There was something else, but It can’t be that
> important. I’ve left
> my notes and laptop at home today.
> It was good to see you again and passed on your best to Ruth. We’re
> off at 3pm today for
> our week’s holiday in Florence. Hope you can make it here in the Spring.
> Sending to Tom as well ! I’ll also reply to Tom shortly about his email.
> 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
> NR4 7TJ
> Name: crupaper2.pdf
> crupaper2.pdf Type: Portable Document Format (application/pdf)
> Encoding: base64
> Name: crupaper_figs.pdf
> crupaper_figs.pdf Type: Portable Document Format (application/pdf)
> Encoding: base64
> Name: ERA40_PRS18.pdf
> ERA40_PRS18.pdf Type: Portable Document Format (application/pdf)
> Encoding: base64
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel: (925) 422-2486
FAX: (925) 422-7675