date: 02 Oct 2009 14:16:54 -0400 from: Gavin Schmidt subject: Re: thanks and one question to: Phil Jones thanks for the background. Gavin PS. In case anyone back in the UK is in a litigious mood, this is clearly libellous: http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5389461/the-great-global-warming-scam-ctd.thtml and the spectator has deep pockets. :-) On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 03:43, Phil Jones wrote: > Gavin, > Possibly the Russians should or could have put the data up from > their 2002 paper. At the time they probably just never thought of doing it. > Keith published the paper in Phil Trans in 2008 and Mc wrote to > the Royal Soc asking for the data. This was put up after some > delay. A person at Phil Trans did request that Keith do this towards > the end of last year. They didn't follow this up with additional > emails. By the time Keith got around to it he then had the kidney > issue - which might have been cancerous until the operation. > Tim's told me that Mc did ask for the data after the 2006 Science > paper. Rob Wilson was on a tree-ring paper with Gordon Jacoby and > Rosanne D'Arrigo and they asked Rob for the data. Rob said he > couldn't put it up as it was LDEO data. They criticised Gordon and > Rosanne but not Rob. Rob used to occasionally go on CA. > > A year or two back we got a few more modern sites for the Yamal > region from the Russians. Tom Melvin and Keith are using this in > their longer response, so they should put that up when they put this > longer response up. Some of these and another of Schweingruber's show > growth increases. It seems that Mc has chosen the one with the least > increase. By early next week they are hoping to put more up. > > We're trying to get the new site details from the Russians - more > than what we have in the location info. Those with little increase > appear to be more close canopy forests, but those with an increase > seem to be more open stand forests where the trees are further apart > and don't close off the canopy. It's all near the tree line and you > get spots of closed (possibly due to being less exposed or slightly > better soil) and open canopy. It all depends on where the relic would > came from - in northern Sweden and Finland it is the more open stands. > > You've made clear that the chronology is built first - then we > look at the climate response. A few dendro types have been caught > only putting in individual cores that agree with the instrumental but > this isn't the way we've ever worked. > > In most dendro work more cores are taken in the field than are > read. This is just good practice as you're in the field and you take > advantage of having got their. You might not read them all due to > time. Cores get rejected because of a number of breaks, compression > wood and a number of other factors. All done though before any > climate data enter the fray. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 19:33 01/10/2009, you wrote: > >so the commenters are out in force this morning....! Thanks for your > >input into the piece. > > > >One question, what is the back story behind the idea that Keith refused > >to put the raw data online? Surely this fell to the Russians to do? > > > >(As usual, it is access and transparency issues which motivate people to > >get all hot and bothered rather than methodological choices for > >standardisation.... ;) ). > > > >gavin > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >