Friday, December 30, 2011

1254518902.txt

From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>
To: Malcolm Hughes <mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: IN STRICTEST CONFIDENCE
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:28:22 +0100
Cc: t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk

<x-flowed>
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