date: Tue Jul 3 17:02:56 2007 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Mitrie to: Martin Juckes , k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, m.allen1@physics.ox.ac.uk, weber@knmi.nl KEITH IMPORTANT -- please take a look at the bit highlighted by Martin below because I don't think it is quite right (though perhaps not greatly wrong). e.g. rather than "different" group of trees, perhaps one is a "subset" of the other? Plus some used combination of density+ring-width, others just ring-width? Cheers Tim At 16:41 03/07/2007, Martin Juckes wrote: Hello, another version of our paper is attached. I've added the following paragraph to the discussion of Table 1, and I'd be grateful if Jan and Keith could check that it is accurate: "Evaluation of past work is further compicated by confusion between closely related proxy series. In Tab.~1 there are two series referred to as Tornetraesk: that used by ECS2002 is based on the same tree-ring data as that used by MSH2005, but with a different standardisation method. The Fennoscandia data used by JBB1998, MBH1999 also come from the Tornetraesk area, but from a different group of trees. The Polar Urals series used by ECS2005 is also a reanalysis of the data used to create the Northern Urals series used by JBB1998, MBH1999. The Taymir data used by HCA2007 is a smoothed version of that used in ECS2002, MSH2005. The Greenland stack data used by MBH1999 is a composite of data analysed by \citet{fisher_etal1996}, but the precise nature of the composite is not described by \citet{fisher_etal1996}." I've also moved a few things around and tried to follow most of the suggestions from Anders and Nanne. I've kept the phrase about "serious flaws" in the conclusion, despite Tim's suggestion, supported by Nanne, of a weaker wording, because I think it is important to draw attention to the serious flaws which are there. One reviewer has implied that we should not discuss flawed work at length because in oding so we give it credibility it does not deserve. I believe that since this stuff is published and influential in some quarters we should discuss it and draw attention to the fact that it is seriously flawed. cheers, Martin