date: Thu, 12 May 2005 15:50:36 +0200 from: Kurt Nicolussi subject: for discussion to: Tom Melvin , "k.briffa@uea.ac.uk" , Andrea Johanna Thurner Hi Tom and Keith, with the completed data set - as I sent you - we established new RCS standardized chronologies for the last 2000 years - up to now using win-ARSTAN. Now we can them compare with the results obtained by using TOM.exe (MRCS, ...). I've added some figures established by Andrea: Vergleich RCS-chronos mit_ohne pt 2.wmf --- compares the two chonos (with / without pt) Vergleich RCS-chronos mit_ohne pt 2 smooth.wmf --- smoothed version of chronos EPS_RBAR_mit_u_ohne_pt 1k.wmf --- comparison of the EPS and RBAR values of these two chronos Mittelk_mit power trans_Vergl5.wmf --- comparison of the chronologies of the three groups of samples (living, subfossil, historical) obtained by using different RCS curves for standardization, all data with pt. Mittelk_ohne power trans_Vergl5.wmf --- the same as above, but without pt. Vergleich RCS mit power trans.wmf --- the RCS curves of the three sample groups, with pt. Vergleich RCS ohne power trans.wmf --- the same, without pt. 1) Why did we divide the data - for data from living trees in comparison to subfossil or historical data it ist necessary - see the different RCS-curves: Vergleich RCS ohne power trans.wmf, Vergleich RCS mit power trans.wmf the "historical" and the "subfossil" RCS differs not really, but up to now we don't have tested what would be the effects. 2) Than we compared the chronologies of these different groups in the overlapping period - see: Mittelk_ohne power trans_Vergl5.wmf; Mittelk_mit power trans_Vergl5.wmf. historical and subfossil differs only slightly - with the exception of the period around AD 1700 - here one sites dominates the data set (altitude 2200 to 2300 m a.s.l.), maybe that's the reason. The first part of the living trees chronology is below the other series - the very old trees start as slow growing trees - maybe we should divide the data sets in two age (?) classes - what do you think? 3) we wanted to compare chronologies established by using power transformation or not - altogether, there are not so big differences for the last 1000 years, but especially for the last few decades is maybe better - but e.g. around 500 AD - the pt version is very high, perhabs too high. (see: Vergleich RCS-chronos mit_ohne pt 2.wmf and Vergleich RCS-chronos mit_ohne pt 2 smooth.wmf). The RBAR values are slightly higher with pt (see: EPS_RBAR_mit_u_ohne_pt 1k.wmf). What's your opinion? Altogether, the temperature sensitive Pinus cembra chronologies show a temperature variability with which I can explain most of the glacier fluctuations within this period that I know. Also the different levels - the LIA as the longest below-average period, the MWP as long, but not extrem above-average period, the long Roman Warm Period on a level similar the late 20th century. Best regards Kurt -- Dr. Kurt Nicolussi, Assoc. Prof. Tree-ring Group / Institute of Geography University of Innsbruck Innrain 52 A-6020 Innsbruck Tel +43 512 507 5673 Fax +43 512 507 2806 Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Vergleich RCS-chronos mit_ohne pt 2.wmf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\EPS_RBAR_mit_u_ohne_pt 1k.wmf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Mittelk_mit power trans_Vergl5.wmf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Mittelk_ohne power trans_Vergl5.wmf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Vergleich RCS mit power trans.wmf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Vergleich RCS ohne power trans.wmf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Vergleich RCS-chronos mit_ohne pt 2 smooth.wmf"