date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 08:20:22 -0500 from: Peter Bloomfield subject: Re: Greetings to: Keith Briffa On 03/08/2006 07:17:31 AM Wed, Keith Briffa wrote: > Peter > First, I echo your greeting. Not quite sure which "Holocene " > you are referring to, but perhaps the Special Issue Volume 12 > Issue 6, though I was not aware that anyone had even registered > its existence. Actually, the journal itself, and your role as founding member--though the special issue is certainly getting some attention! > I am aware of your involvement in the Committee and glad to > hear of it. Sorry I was bogged down here > with IPCC stuff and so unable to attend. > You will come to realise that McIntyre and Mc Kitrick and > neither fair or objective in their self-appointed roles as > so-called "arbiters" of the palaeo work. > I have heard that they are casting aspersions on your own > objectivity , on the grounds I believe, that I once cited your > advice as a "personal communication". > If this causes you a problem , then I apologise, but the > "logic" of their position is non existent. > In a paper in the aforementioned Holocene special issue , > published in 2002 , I do indeed acknowledge your help "as > follows > " We are grateful to Peter Bloomfield for discussions of > reconstruction uncertainty". This refers to a typed note sent > to "Phil and Keith" , dated 19th December 1990 , which > contained notes on calculating confidence levels on > reconstructed time series . I can send a photocopy if you would > like to see it. That's what I needed--no need for a copy. I read the appendix where you cited those expressions, and that brought the content pretty much back to mind. > Tim Osborn and I drew on these notes (as acknowledged in the > paper) when discussing the uncertainties on reconstructed > Northern Hemisphere time series. I realise that I did not draw > this to your attention at the time - but in fact , I think I > did consider this, but did not know your whereabouts (having > heard some rumour that you had left science to seek your > fortune in the realms of the money markets?). Ah, yes, /that/ was something completely different--and not yet entirely over, but that's a story for a more convivial occasion. > In fact, I would very much like to discuss issues of > reconstruction uncertainty and the efficacy of different > regression approaches again with you, as this is now , as you > will have gleaned, an important subject in the context of > global warmth and its likely precedence. > > We are working on this issue and would be happy to pass some > stuff by you for comment. > However, if this endangers your position as a member of the > Committee , no problem. I'd be glad to see anything you'd like to get a reaction to--but as you note, it should probably be left until this committee completes its task. Perhaps we could get together some time and talk about the whole issue. Best, Peter