Wednesday, May 16, 2012

4290.txt

cc: Scott Rutherford <srutherfordatXYZxyz.edu>
date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 13:42:37 -0700
from: "Malcolm Hughes" <mhughesatXYZxyzr.arizona.edu>
subject: Re: J. Climate paper - in confidence
to: "Malcolm Hughes" <mhughesatXYZxyzr.arizona.edu>, Tim Osborn <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Briffa Keith <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Michael E. Mann" <mannatXYZxyzginia.edu>

Mike - there are the following density data in that set:
1) 20 Schweingruber/Frttss series from the ITRDB (those that
met the criteria described in the Mann et al 2000 EI paper)
2) Northern Fennoscandia reconstruction (from Keith)
3) Northern Urals reconstruction (from Keith)
4) 1 density series for China (Hughes data) and one from India
(also Hughes data) - neither included in Keith's data set, I think.
5) To my great surprise I find that you used the Briffa gridded
temperature reconstruction from W. N. America (mis-attributed
to Fritts and Shao) - of course I should have picked up on this 6
years ago when reading the proofs of the Nature sup mat. It was
my understanding that we had decided not to use these
reconstructions, as the data on which they were based were in the
ITRDB, and had been subject to that screening process. So
depending on whether you used the long or the shorter versions
of these, there will have been a considerable number of density
series included , some of them twice. It means that there is
considerably more overlap between the two data sets, in North
America, than I have been telling people. I stand corrected.
Cheers, Malcolm
.
.Malcolm Hughes
Professor of Dendrochronology
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
520-621-6470
fax 520-621-8229

No comments:

Post a Comment