Monday, December 19, 2011

1136918726.txt

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Nature: Review of manuscript 2005-12-14395
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:45:26 -0700

<x-flowed>
Keith,

Thanx for this. Interesting. However, I do not think your
response is very good. Further, there are grammatical and
text errors, and (shocking!!) you have spelled McKitrick
wrong. This is a sure way to piss them off.

They claim that three cores do not cross-date for TRW.
They also say (without results) that the same applies to MXD
(these results may be in their Supp. Mat. -- I presume you
checked this).

So, all you need say is ...

(1) TRW was not the only data used for cross-dating.
(2) When MXD is used there are clear t-value peaks,
contrary to their claim. You can show your Fig. 4 to prove
this.
(3) The 3-core-composite cross-dates with other (well-dated)
chronologies (Yamal and Polurula), confirming the MXD-based
dating. You can show your Fig. 5 to prove this.

You could say all this in very few words -- not many more than
I have used above. As it is, your verbosity will leave any reader
lost.

There are some problems still. I note that 1032 is not cold in Yamal.
Seems odd. Is it cold in *all* of the three chronologies at issue?
Or did a reindeer crap next to one of the trees?

Also, there seems to be a one-year offset in the 1020s in your
Fig. 6.

I hope this is useful. I really think you have to do (and can do) a
better job in combatting the two Ms. If this stuff gets into Nature,
you still have a chance to improve it. Personally, I think it would
be good for it to appear since, with an improved response, you can
make MM look like ignorant idiots.

Tom.

=========================

Keith Briffa wrote:

> Dear Emma
> I am very sorry for the delay in returning this response to the
> submitted Brief Communication By McIntyre and McKitric . I have been
> extremely busy and to substantiate my written remarks it was necessary
> to dig out the original data and produce a number of Figures
> illustrating the true nature of the cross-dating of the data . I have
> (or at least my Research Associate Tom) has now done this and I am
> finally in a position to write the response. This is contained in the
> WORD file attached to this message . The Figures are attached in a
> separate file. I am happy for you to send the attached written
> response to McIntyre and McKitric , but I would prefer if you would
> NOT send the Figures , at least until these are posted on the Climatic
> (hopefully sometime tomorrow). I am accepting your offer of sending
> this response directly to you rather than sending it through the
> Nature system . Sorry that it is a little long.
> If you decide to publish their communication ( which I consider very
> unlikely , given its entirely fallacious content) I would expect
> Nature to publish this response and find room to publish my Figures
> (even if only as Supplementary material). Thank you again for your
> patience.
> yours sincerely
> Keith
>
>
>
>
>
>> At 10:30 06/01/2006, you wrote:
>> >Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>> boundary="_----------=_113654340816203"
>> >MIME-Version: 1.0
>> >X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 3.01 (F2.6; B2.12; Q2.03)
>> >Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 10:30:08 UT
>> >Message-Id: <113654340854@www11>
>> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>> >
>> >Dear Professor Briffa
>> >
>> >I am writing to you on behalf of Rosalind Cotter, with regard to
>> >your Reply to the Communications Arising manuscript by Dr Irwing and
>> >co-authors entitled "A gender difference in intelligence?". Should
>> >you now have had the chance to consider the paper, we would be
>> >grateful if you could send us your comments as soon as possible.
>> >
>> >We would respectfully remind you that if we do not hear from you
>> >within the next few days, we shall proceed with the reviewing
>> >process without a Reply from you (in accordance with our guide to
>> authors).
>>
>> >
>> >Alternatively, if it would be more convenient, please send your
>> >reply directly to me by return email. However, please highlight
>> >those comments that are confidential and which should be passed on
>> >to the authors.
>> >
>> >Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter.
>> >
>> >Yours sincerely
>> >
>> >
>> >Emma Poulter
>> >Editorial Assistant
>> >Nature
>> >The Macmillan Building
>> >4 Crinan Street
>> >London N1 9XW, UK
>> >Tel +44 (0)20 7833 4559
>> >Fax +44 (0)20 7843 4596/7 mailto:e.poulter@nature.com
>> >
>> >For Dr Rosalind Cotter
>> >
>> >*Nature's author and policy information sites are at
>> >www.nature.com/nature/submit/.
>> >Nature's publisher, Nature Publishing Group, does not retain
>> >authors' copyright. Authors grant NPG an exclusive licence, in
>> >return for which they can reuse their papers in their future printed
>> >work. An author can post a copy of the published paper on his or her
>> >own not-for-profit website.
>> >
>> >The Macmillan Building, Crinan Street, London N1 9XW, UK
>> >Tel +44 (0)20 7833 4000; Fax +44 (0)20 7843 4596/7 nature@nature.com
>> >
>> >968 National Press Building, 529 14th Street, Washington DC 20045, USA
>> >Tel +1 202 737 2355; Fax +1 202 628 1609 nature@naturedc.com
>> >
>> >225 Bush Street, Suite 1453, San Francisco CA 94104, USA
>> >Tel +1 415 403 9027; Fax +1 415 781 3805 nature@naturesf.com
>> >
>> >
>> >This email has been sent through the NPG Manuscript Tracking System
>> >NY-610A-NPG&MTS
>
>
> --
> Professor Keith Briffa,
> Climatic Research Unit
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>
> Phone: +44-1603-593909
> Fax: +44-1603-507784
>

</x-flowed>

No comments:

Post a Comment