Monday, June 18, 2012

5296.txt

date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 11:56:44 -0400
from: Ed Cook <drdendroatXYZxyzo.columbia.edu>
subject: Re: ARSTAN
to: Keith Briffa <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>

I accept your comments totally. I would hardly view the lack of a
comparison with the RCS method as a fatal flaw. But it still should be done
at some point.

>I tried ringing you about this - but without luck. I have to go and collect
>my daughter (Amy) now so will try again tomorrow. We need to talk about this.
>The comparison is far from simple. I don't consider that applying the RCS
>at the site level is valid because many site collections are made up of
>near equal age populations. The correct test at the scale we are working is
>therefore the large region - i.e. produce one RCS curve , based on all
>trees/species in the region. You may argue that a separate curve for each
>genus in each area is valid , and then again , each species - as shown in
>the example Figure 2. Who knows which is correct? Surely the point of the
>paper we have submitted is that we have offered one solution - EVEN IF IT
>TURNS OUT TO BE REPRODUCIBLE by some other , even existing method . I do
>intend to do a more detailed paper describing and comparing the
>ABD approach , but that is for a tree-ring audience (and it is not clear
>what needs to be done in the comparison anyway). Here we show that this
>method does capture more long-timescale information than the
>Huggershof and that is important in this climate context. To negate the
>effort because the RCS might do it in some manifestation is surely unfair.
>Keith
>At 10:44 AM 6/29/00 -0400, you wrote:
>>Hi Keith,
>>
>>You always are right to the point. I agree that the "dot curve" idea may be
>>"pretty much a waste of programming effort". However, the problem of
>>unfilled band years is tractable I believe. If it is, then it may not be
>>such a waste of time afterall. Of course, it may not do anything better
>>than your banding method.
>>
>>Tim sent me the banding ms. I will look at it. Without having reading the
>>earlier version all that carefully, I would say that the biggest "problem"
>>with your proposed method is the lack of direct comparison with the RCS
>>method. Have you done that now? If not, why not? It really should be done,
>>you know, to show that the banding method has any advantage over the RCS
>>method. I think it does, but thinking is not showing.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Ed
>>
>>===========================
>>Dr. Edward R. Cook
>>Tree-Ring Laboratory
>>Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
>>Palisades, New York 10964
>>Phone: 914-365-8618
>>Fax: 914-365-8152
>>Email: drdendroatXYZxyzo.columbia.edu
>>===========================
>
>--
>Dr. Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia,
>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom
>Phone: +44-1603-592090 Fax: +44-1603-507784


===========================
Dr. Edward R. Cook
Tree-Ring Laboratory
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Palisades, New York 10964
Phone: 914-365-8618
Fax: 914-365-8152
Email: drdendroatXYZxyzo.columbia.edu
===========================


No comments:

Post a Comment