from: Keith Briffa <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: Re: Another draft -- hopefully ready for submission
to: Martin Juckes <m.n.juckesatXYZxyzac.uk>
first sorry these comments did not go with you on your visit - no problem with the
responses as far as I can see. I am attaching a paper by Gene Wahl and Caspar Amann that
you may not have seen - it deals with the issue of the PC calculation as used by Mann et al
and M+M apologies if you have seen this already. Do you wish me to comment on the latest
draft of our paper as I have it now , or do you have a revised version. I know my
collaboration has not been efficient but what with IPCC and other stuff , it has not been
an easy time this last year
At 15:08 09/08/2006, you wrote:
some brief responses to your hand-wrtten comments:
Scope: there is some vague motivational stuff in the introduction which might
give the impression we are tackling a wider problem than we actually are --
I'll try and make it more focussed on what we do.
I've corrected the confusion between Age Banding and RCS (Anders pointed this
out earlier), and pointed out that Briffa et al. 2001 used density data.
I've added a comment about the empirical content of the Oerlemans
I want to keep in the McIntyre and McKitrick discussion because they have
created the impression that the temperature series in their 2003 paper
results from choices about quality control which are debatable: the truth is
that they made a serious mistake which led to substantial amounts of data
being omitted. As to the question of how it fits in with this paper: firstly,
the Dutch funding obliges us to review this, so I want to make it fit,
secondly, I want to be able to say that those publications (McIntyre and
McKitrick 2003, Soon and Baliunas) which contradict the IPCC (2001) statement
(last decades of 20th century likely warmer than ....) are seriously flawed:
this requires justification in the text.
On Soon and Baliunas: I've added references to the EOS papers, but I'm not
entirely convinced by the arguments there, so want to add an extra point.
This is perhaps a moot point since Osborn and Briffa (2006) does a cleaner
job, but I want to point out that the Soon and Baliunas analysis was
inappropriate, even if the issues of choices of proxies raised in the EOS
papers were resolved.
On Tuesday 01 August 2006 17:02, you wrote:
> been frantically involved with IPCC stuff. thanks for this -realised
> never sent earlier comments so have left with Tim to send anyway - am
> away for a week and will take this with me
> At 14:27 01/08/2006, you wrote:
> >Hello All,
> >here is another draft. I've added a new reconstruction, using 19
> >proxies series from Jones et al., Mann et al., Esper et al. and Moberg et
> >This gives a good fit to the calibration data, such that 2 recent
> >years exceed
> >the maximum pre-industrial estimate by 4 sigma levels. I've included this
> >because without it I found it hard to draw precise and useful conclusions
> >from the 4 partially overlapping reconstructions I had done before.
> 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.