Saturday, March 17, 2012


date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:37:37 -0400
from: "Rosanne D'Arrigo" <>
subject: Re: Fw: D'Arrigo et al, submitted
to: Tim Osborn <>

hi Rob -

i am leary of passing all of this around but in
this case i am glad in that osborn et al
need to know what is going on - they should fire
him as a reviewer of IPCC - i cant
believe they included him in the first place! So,
please email him back and tell him that he
should as he says take it up with the ipcc
authors and see whether it is still appropriate to
include him as a reviewer.

we should however be very cautious about our
emails, lord v will stop at nothing (this
is sort of fun in a harry potter way)...


>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unpublished papers and reports that are cited in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
>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
>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" <<>>
>>>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
>>>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,
>>>Yours truly,
>>>Stephen McIntyre
>Dr Timothy J Osborn
>Climatic Research Unit
>School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
>Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
>phone: +44 1603 592089
>fax: +44 1603 507784

Rosanne D'Arrigo, Senior Research Scientist
Tree-Ring Laboratory
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
61 Route 9W
Palisades, New York 10964
845 365 8617 845 365 8152 fax

No comments:

Post a Comment