To: Phil Jones <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Eystein Jansen <email@example.com>, Jonathan Overpeck <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: McIntyre and D'Arrigo et al (submitted)
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:20:00 +0100
Cc: Keith Briffa <email@example.com>
Dear Phil, Eystein and Peck,
I've already talked about this to Phil and Keith, but for Eystein's
and Peck's benefit the emails copied below relate to McIntyre
downloading a PDF of a manuscript cited by the IPCC paleo chapter and
then apparently trying to interfere with the editorial process that
the paper is currently going through at JGR.
I think this is an abuse of McIntyre's position as an IPCC reviewer.
Rosanne replied to my email below, to say that they *do* want this
taken further. So...
Phil has agreed to forward these messages to Susan Solomon and Michael Manning.
Eystein and Peck: do you want to add anything too?
>Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:08:22 +0100
>To: "Rob Wilson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Rosanne D'Arrigo"
>From: Tim Osborn <email@example.com>
>Subject: Re: Fw: D'Arrigo et al, submitted
>Dear Rob and Rosanne,
>I strongly agree that this is an abuse of his position as IPCC
>reviewer! The data archiving issues are a separate issue because I
>think there's no need for the data you used to be publicly available
>until the paper is actually published, and I would hope that the
>editor would respond appropriately. But the other comments could
>clearly influence the editorial/review process and this is very
>unfair when your paper has already been reviewed by
>others. McIntyre could of course submit a comment after your paper
>was published if he wished to criticize certain aspects, and that is
>the route he should have followed. He tried to stop publication of
>a paper that I was a co-author on, Rutherford et al. (2005), by
>contacting the editor of J. Climate with various criticisms -
>fortunately the editor told him firmly that the route to take was to
>submit a comment after publication. However, in our case the paper
>was already in press. In your case, with the editor's decision
>still to be made, there is clearly more scope for McIntyre to
>influence the decision in your case - and this certainly should not happen.
>The conditions which McIntyre (and all other IPCC reviewers) agreed
>to before downloading your manuscript were:
>"This site also provides access to copies of some submitted,
>in-press, or otherwise unpublished papers and reports that are cited
>in the draft WG I report. All such material is made available only
>to support the review of the IPCC drafts. These works are not
>themselves subject to the IPCC review process and are not to be
>distributed, quoted or cited without prior permission from their
>original authors in each instance."
>I don't think that contacting the journal editor with criticisms is
>"only to support the review of the IPCC drafts".
>I will take this issue up with the chapter lead authors and the WG1
>technical support unit - unless you prefer that I didn't. Please let me know.
>At 08:33 28/09/2005, Rob Wilson wrote:
>>Hi Tim and Keith,
>>please see the e-mail (below) from Steve Macintyre to the Editor of JGR.
>>This seems a major abuse of his position as reviewer for IPCC?
>>In some respects, I don't mind having to address his comments (many
>>of which are already adequately explained I think, although a
>>detailed list of all data used could certainly go in an
>>appendix), but this just seems a bit off. After all, we have
>>addressed the reviewers comments and are currently awaiting a
>>decision. This e-mail may effect the decision greatly.
>>Is he going to do this for all papers he does not quite agree with.
>>>From: "Steve McIntyre"
>>>To: "Colin O'Dowd" <<mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>email@example.com>
>>>Cc: "Rob Wilson"
>>> "Rosanne D'Arrigo"
>>>Subject: D'Arrigo et al, submitted
>>>Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:37:06 -0400
>>>Dear Dr O'Dowd,
>>>I am a reviewer for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 4AR)
>>>and am writing in respect to a submission to your journal by
>>>D'Arrigo et al., entitled "On the Long-Term Context for Late 20th
>>>Century Warming." This article was referenced in chapter 6 of the
>>>Draft IPCC 4AR and made available to IPCC reviewers. In the course
>>>of my review, I contacted the senior author, Dr. D'Arrigo, for the
>>>FTP location of the data used in this article or for alternative
>>>access to the data. Dr D'Arrigo categorically refused and I was
>>>referred to the journal editor if I desired recourse.
>>>Data Citation and Archiving
>>>I point out that AGU policies for data citation and data archiving
>>>) specifically require that authors provide data citation
>>>according to AGU standards and require that contributors archive
>>>data in permanent archives, such as the World Data Center for
>>>Paleoclimatology. For example, the policy states:
>>>1. Data sets cited in AGU publications must meet the same type of
>>>standards for public access and long-term availability as are
>>>applied to citations to the scientific literature. Thus data cited
>>>in AGU publications must be permanently archived in a data center �
>>>2. Data sets that are available only from the author, through
>>>miscellaneous public network services, or academic, government or
>>>commercial institutions not chartered specifically for archiving
>>>data, may not be cited in AGU publications.
>>>On page 21 of D'Arrigo et al., there is a listing of "regional
>>>groupings" of data. In some cases, part of the data is archived at
>>>WDCP; in other cases, the data has been collected by the authors,
>>>but has not been archived.
>>>In cases, where the data has been archived, it has not been cited
>>>according to AGU policies. For example, the Torntraesk site is
>>>presumably swed019w, but this is not stated. The Polar Urals site
>>>appears to be a combination of russ021w, russ176w and russ022w,
>>>but this is not stated. The Quebec site appears to be a version of
>>>cana036, but a version that differs from the one archived, as it
>>>includes more series. The "Mongolia" site appears to be the
>>>authors' mong003 site, but a different version than the one
>>>archived (which commences at a different date). The "Yukon" series
>>>is a combination of two sites, which are not stated. At least one
>>>of the sites is a different version from the one archived. The
>>>Icefields site is again a different version than the one archived.
>>>Other data sets e.g. Seward, NW North America, Central Alaska,
>>>Wrangells, Coast Alaska, Central NWT, Southern Alaska, have been
>>>collected by the authors and are either not archived at all or
>>>archived in obsolete versions.
>>>In order that this submission comply with AGU policies on data
>>>archiving, I request that you require D'Arrigo et al. do (1)
>>>provide accurate data citations complying with AGU policies for
>>>all data sets presently archived at WDCP; (2) archive all "grey"
>>>data used in the article.
>>>The results of this article depend on methodological details,
>>>especially as to standardization procedures. However, these
>>>procedures are not described in objective or operational terms. I
>>>will illustrate some examples below:
>>> Page 21 � "In select cases, a power transform (PT) was applied
>>> to correct for data biases. This bias was assessed by correlation
>>> and residual analysis against both local and large scale
>>> temperature series." In which cases was PT applied and what were
>>> the objective criteria in the correlation and residual analysis,
>>> which were used to determine whether this should be applied.
>>>Page 21 � "Due to differing populations in the TR data, the
>>>data-sets were often grouped into 'common' populations. No one
>>>strategy is appropriate for all data-sets and careful evaluation
>>>of each composite data-set was made." That's nice, but what were
>>>the operational criteria which were used to allocate each case to
>>>the 5 different alternative procedures.
>>>Page 7 � "The standard error of the regression estimate (standard
>>>deviation of the regression residuals) from the full period
>>>calibration was used to generate the 2 sigma error bars and this
>>>was also adjusted (inflated) to account for the change (decrease)
>>>in explained variance in each nest." � The last adjustment is not
>>>described in operational terms. Shouldn't the standard error be
>>>realistically measured by the standard deviation from the
>>>verification period residuals?
>>>Page 20. "Successful modeling of paleoclimate data with the high
>>>temperatures of the late 1990s is essential if we are to make
>>>robust, definitive conclusions about past temperature amplitudes
>>>and variability." Abstract � "presently-available paleoclimatic
>>>reconstructions are inadequate for making specific inferences, at
>>>hemispheric scales, about MWP warmth relative to the anthropogenic
>>>period and that such comparisons can only still be made at the
>>>local/regional scale." Page 13. "After this period [mid-1980s],
>>>the divergence between the tree-ring and instrumental data results
>>>in weakening of calibration results and failed verification
>>>statistics". The authors contradict these caveats by proceeding to
>>>make a variety of inferences and claims "at hemispheric scales"
>>>about MWP warmth or lack thereof relative to the modern period. A
>>>comparison of their reconstruction to instrumental temperatures is
>>>prominently made in the Abstract, on page 10 and page 14. If the
>>>reconstructions are inadequate for making these inferences, then
>>>don't make them.
>>>Thank you for your consideration,
Dr Timothy J Osborn
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK