date: Fri Apr 28 17:04:18 2006 from: Tim Osborn subject: Fwd: Re: Ruherford et al 2005 to: Keith Briffa And here's a separate email from McIntyre. I'm not sure that we can tell Science that we do *not* want to issue a correction to our paper and at the same time tell McIntyre that he cannot make public the fact that we used CRUTEM2v rather than HadCRUT2 as I stated in the online supplement. Perhaps we should wait and see if Science are happy with us not issuing a correction; if they are happy with this, then I guess McIntyre should be allowed to make public our response, even though he will no doubt gloat and make hay with it. Cheers Tim From: "Steve McIntyre" To: "Tim Osborn" Subject: Re: Ruherford et al 2005 Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:47:13 -0400 Dear Tim, Since the network had been published in a number of different articles, I presumed that the identification of the sites would not be an onerous task. I originally requested this information from Schweingruber in 2004, so it's not a new request. Science has forwarded your response, but said that this information should not be made public without going back to you. I can't think why you would object, but for the record, could you confirm that the information may be distributed. Thanks, Steve McIntyre ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Osborn" To: "Steve McIntyre" Cc: "Andrew Weaver" ; "Keith Briffa" Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 10:08 AM Subject: Re: Ruherford et al 2005 > Dear Steve, > > I have just finished responding to Science about your latest request > to them concerning our recent paper, so I can now turn to your > request copied below. > > I can answer your first request immediately: > > The MXD data used in Rutherford et al. were *derived* from the > Schweingruber network, but aren't actually the raw site-by-site data > values. The reason why we didn't use the latter is that the > site-by-site MXD chronologies have only been processed using a > "traditional" approach to standardization that removes low-frequency > climate variations. Our age-band decomposition approach (Briffa et > al., 2001, JGR), which retains more low-frequency variability, had > only been applied at the regional-average level. So we gridded the > site-by-site chronologies onto a 5x5 grid and added to each grid box > the "missing" regional-scale low-frequency information identified by > comparing the age-band and traditionally-standardized results at a > regional scale. > > I will respond with information and/or data to your requests (2)-(4) soon. > > Regards > > Tim > > At 19:37 18/04/2006, Steve McIntyre wrote: > >Dear Tim, I presume that the sites used in the MXD network in > >Rutherford et al., Journal of Climate 2005 came from the > >SChweingruber network. Could you provide me with (1) confirmation as > >to whether this is the case; (2) identification of the sites; (3) > >the protocol for site selection from the larger Schweingruber > >network; (4) a URL for any data or dataversions not available in the > >Schweingruber network at WDCP. Regards, Steve McIntyre > > Dr Timothy J Osborn > Climatic Research Unit > School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia > Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK > > e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk > phone: +44 1603 592089 > fax: +44 1603 507784 > web: [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ > sunclock: [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm >