cc: Nanne Weber <weberatXYZxyzi.nl>, Anders Moberg <andersatXYZxyzu.su.se>, Myles Allen <myles.allenatXYZxyzsics.ox.ac.uk>, Gabi Hegerl <hegerlatXYZxyze.edu>, Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de, Tim Osborn <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Keith Briffa <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Jan Esper <jan.esperatXYZxyz.ch>
date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:16:33 +0000
from: Martin Juckes <m.n.juckesatXYZxyzac.uk>
subject: Re: FW: Juckes et al Submission
to: Anders Moberg <anders.mobergatXYZxyzgeo.su.se>
I'm preparing a response. I've just got the relevant part of the MM2005c
(Energy and Environment) software working and the surprising conclusion
is that they no only overlooked the standardisation stage but also failed to
centre the data. This is relected in Figure 2 of the Energy and Environment
paper which shows the first PC to oscillate aroubnd 0.04 -- the mean of this
PC is much greater than its variability. Data is usuall centred, of course,
because otherwise the mean values dominate the first PC, which is what is
happening here. I'll get a comment to this effect up on the CPD site by the
end of today. (I was on leave yesterday, hence the delay in responding).
There is a mistake in the manuscript at the point McIntyre cites, it should be
MM2005c (the EE paper) not MM2005 (the GRL paper) which was referred to there.
The software for the EE paper is now available on his site, as he indicates,
since March this year, but is still not linked to from anywhere.
Nevertheless, I will apologise for the inaccuracy and correct the comments
on the basis of what his code actually does,
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 12:01, Anders Moberg wrote:
> Dear Martin,
> Have you found out yet how you/we shall react to McIntyres complaint? If
> it is correct that their code actually is available (I suppose it is
> correct - otherwise he would not have complained), I suggest that you
> discuss with the editor of changing the manuscript in an appropriate way
> at the appropriate place(s). This seems to be the easiest and most fair
> thing to do.