Friday, December 30, 2011

1254505571.txt

From: Malcolm Hughes <mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: IN STRICTEST CONFIDENCE
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:46:11 -0700
Cc: t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk

<x-flowed>
Keith - is there a time in the next few days when you could stand
talking briefly about this on the phone? I think the fog about the
status of the Indigirka/Yakutua data could be cleared really quickly
that way. Once again, I'm really sorry it has been necessary to bother
you with this. Cheers, Malcolm

Keith Briffa wrote:
> Malcolm
> honestly just a cross thread between Tom and I. I had been asked by
> Darrell whether we should use the Sidorova chronology - because of
> hassle by you know who - so asked Tom a while ago to ask you. I did
> not see your answer - sorry if you cc'd me in as I have not been
> checking emails. I fully accept and would NEVER go behind your back to
> ask for the data. I understood that the chronology was published and
> so thought to compare our RCS version with it if we could produce it
> in time . We are being accused of not using that chronology in the
> Science paper- so then asked Anders for it. I am happy to send Darrell
> the single chronology if that is what Anders has sent. I am having to
> start thinking about the Yamal crap and then this Darrell stuff
> suddenly arises. I just wanted him to consider including the Polar
> Urals reconstruction and the Sidorova series in his analysis before
> publishing a correction in Science- apparently the selection criterion
> for inclusion of series was anything published north of 60 degrees and
> longer than 1000 years. I could do without all this now - don't really
> understand what Climate Audit are getting so hysterical about but feel
> that I can not ignore it this time - but don't feel up to getting
> involved. I fully admit to being out of the loop as regards all this
> and having trouble getting back to it.
>
> To restate - this was a confusion. I fully accept your point (as you
> know I would). Sorry if you thought I was doing anything without your
> knowledge - TO BE HONEST ALSO - I actually was not really aware that
> the data you were producing and that used by Sidorova were one and the
> same. Best wishes hopefully all ok
> I assume that we are allowed to use the chronolgy as published - are
> we? I have not contacted Sidorova. Can you cc answer to Tom as I have
> no email at present. (this coming from someone elses computer)
> Keith
>
>
> At 16:50 02/10/2009, you wrote:
>> Dear Keith - I do hope your recovery continues apace, in spite of the
>> recent nonsense. I really have had no intention to bother you with
>> work stuff, and had strongly encouraged Mike and Gavin to contact
>> Tim and/or Tom putting a response on RlCl. So, I'm really reticent to
>> raise something else, but must.
>> What's going on? 21st September I got an email from Tom M that
>> contained the following para, among other more general discussion:
>> "Keith has been complained at by Climate Audit for cherry picking and
>> not using your long Indigirka River data set. Not used because we did
>> not have the data. Please, could we have the data? We will make
>> proper aknowledgement/coauthorship if we use the data."
>> I replied pretty much straight away thus: "Hi Tom - please find the
>> Esper article in question attached. The so-called Indigirka River
>> data set is not yet available because it has not been published. I
>> am currently working on that with Russian colleagues, and was indeed
>> in Switzerland the week before last to work with one of them on
>> specifically this. All being well, there will be an accepted
>> manuscript before next summer, and at that point I will make the data
>> freely available. Once we get to that point, I'll let you know, of
>> course. Cheers, Malcolm" .
>> So far, no direct response to this email from Tom.
>> This morning I get an email from Anders Moberg, telling me that you
>> had asked him for the "Indigirka data". I've waited a couple of hours
>> before writing this email so as to try to be constructive. To be sure
>> that you understand what that dataset is and is not, please read the
>> attached 2006 Moberg corrigendum.
>> Once again, the actual data are unpublished, in spite of having been
>> discussed in the Russian literature by Siderova et al. A large
>> proportion of the raw data are not yet in the public domain, and so
>> you would not be able to critically evaluate the chronology as a
>> possible climate proxy. Why can that not be said - adequate metadata
>> not available, please see Moberg corrigendum? By the way, a 600-year
>> reconstruction is available (Hughes et al 1999, also attached), and
>> all those raw data are at the ITRDB.
>> As you know, it is my intention to friendly, cooperative and open,
>> but I'm determined to get some scientific value from all the years of
>> work I've invested in the Yakutia work, and in cooperation with
>> Russia in general. Releasing these data now would be too much.
>> Cheers, Malcolm
>>
>>
>> --
>> Malcolm K Hughes
>> Regents' Professor
>> Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
>> The University of Arizona
>> 105 W Stadium
>> Tucson, AZ 85721
>> USA
>>
>> tel: +1-520-621-6470
>> fax: +1-520-621-8229
>>
>> mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu
>>
>> http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/people/8
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Professor Keith Briffa,
> Climatic Research Unit
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>
> Phone: +44-1603-593909
> Fax: +44-1603-507784
>
> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
</x-flowed>

No comments:

Post a Comment