date: Fri, 16 May 1997 17:28:32 -0500
from: druid@ldgo.columbia.edu (Gordon Jacoby)
subject: Your Paper
to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk

Keith:

Your paper is interesting and I would agree that it s a large-scale
problem. I have also found the problem in the Taymyr trees. At one site
there is a definite change and increase in moisture stress; at others the
explanation is not obvious. For full understanding each site may have to be
examined in detail. I have found individual sites/trees where the response
to temperature is still continuing.

The second sentence raises a point that I have mentioned to you before. A
substantial number of the sites across Canada are in the boreal forest but
nowhere near latitudinal or elevational treeline. The boreal forest is
complex and should not be catagorized by a blanket "temperature sensitive"
description regarding ring widths. I suggest a qualifying phrase to
indicate something about the site variations.and not the use of the word
"all". e. g. some were at lower elevations but still within the boreal
forest. I have no firsthand knowledge of the sites in the US southwest but
from other montane sites in the same regions, there is clear moisture
stress even at some of the higher elevations.

There is also the related problem of primarily selecting sites for
temperature sensitivity and then using the same data set as representative
of general forest growth conditions that relate to the CO-2 problem.

I do not believe the problem will be solved by lumping grand arrays of data
and regionalizing some varied gross impacts. It can be used to point out a
serious problem but will not lead to real understanding of causes. Maybe
just calling attention to the problem is your intent with this paper.

Be explicit in the abstract that by "tree-growth records" you are referring
to ring widths. The abstract makes the same point Rosanne and I made in the
paper that you cite about the Alaska trees. In those particular trees, the
effect of moisture stress was clear.

On a personal note: I made a sincere effort at the IAI meeting in Calgary
last fall to restart a cooperative mode in communicating with both Malcolm
and Lisa. Then in the last hour they pulled their collective grab for
control of the entire project by stacking a proposal committee with
themselves. It subverted the whole concept of a communal,
multi-institution, multi-disciplinary enterprise. I find it very difficult
to work with someone who at every opening will try to take over any
communal project.

Cheers,   Gordon