date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:49:47 +0100 (BST) from: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: more from McIntyre to: "Darrell Kaufman" Darrell sorry to be out of loop - [[[redacted: health]]] - today I went in to university but will not be officially back til 1st Nov. I will try to respond in detail tomorrow - but I do not know the basic crux of the Yamal complaint - I suppose I must spend time on the Climate Audit website - but have been loathe to do so as many criticisms that have come to my attention seem crass or misguided. Please prompt again if you can point me to the specifics of the problem with Yamal - as for other long chronologies in Eurasia , I am aware of one further East than the area upon which we focussed in our Phil. Trans. paper - published I believe in a conference abstract only - the raw data are not , I believe, available until Malcolm Hughes releases them . The chronology that exists (produced by Russian colleagues) might be available and I will try to find out - you could ask Anders Moberg for the data directly - this would help me in the meantime - I need to know more specifics re Yamal. I do not believe there are long series other than those you used but will also have to check the 60 north criterion to be sure. Keith > Hi Keith: > I realize that you are out of the office and I'm sorry to bother you > about this again, but the recent Arctic warming paper seems to have > had a major impact. Because it's in the lime light, I think it's > important that we publish an erratum to correct my error in reversing > the Finnish lake-varve series. Two other authors also found minor > errors in their proxy time series and we will include these revisions > as well. None of the revisions change the conclusions, but we want to > be as accurate as possible. > > As we are preparing for to publish the erratum, it would be helpful if > you could double check that we have included all of the most current > tree-ring time series that meet the criteria of the study: > > - north of 60N > - at least 1000 years long > > In addition the the Gulf of Alaska, we included the three from your > 2008 Phil Trans paper: Fennoscandia, Yamal, and Avam-Timyr > > Did we miss any? It's important because we claim that our study > includes all of the published proxy data that meet these criteria. Is > there a published record from the Indigirka River region that we > neglected to include? > > Regarding the criticism that the new Yamal series looks so much > different than the earlier Polar Urals series, I assume that the RCS > approach that you used for the 2008 study supersedes and is superior > to any previous analyses. Is that a fair statement? > > Thanks. > > Darrell > > > > On Sep 8, 2009, at 10:12 AM, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk wrote: > >> Darrell >> I do not read his blog - if YOU ask him for more detail of what he >> means >> (it can not be Grudd's work) then I will think about it. Will be >> back in >> touch before end of week on other stuff.Keith >> >>> Hi Keith: >>> this from McIntyre: >>> >>> Briffa's Yamal series, which has been a staple of these sorts of >>> studies for many years. It would be highly desirable for someone >>> to >>> do a detailed reconciliation of why the updated version of Polar >>> Urals >>> yields such different results to Briffa's Yamal series. >>> >>> I assume he's referring to Grud's (sp) recent work. Let me know if >>> you >>> have a quick explanation. >>> >>> Thanks. >> >> > >