date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:26:50 +0000 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Fwd: right data? to: Keith Briffa ,Jan Esper Dear Jan, Keith forwarded your message and excel file to me to take a look at. I have not had a chance to do so yet, but one thought occurred to me... The "interannual" correlations listed in our Table 1 were (see footnote of Table) computed between "timeseries of residuals from decadally smoothed curves". In other words, we used high-pass filtered series to compute them. The filter we used had gaussian-shaped weights, chosen to remove time scales longer than about 10 years. If you didn't filter the MXD and temperature, then that might explain the different results. Cheers Tim >>Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 15:47:03 +0100 >>To: Briffa Keith >>From: Jan Esper >>Subject: right data? >> >>Hi Keith >> >>I attached an Excel file with some correlation numbers that might deviate >>from the ones provided in your 98 Nature paper. >> >>The file contains two spreadsheets (Source, MXD_Eurasia). >> >>"Source" is the original data sent by Tim. >> >>I copied then some relevant data to the sheet "MXD_Eurasia" >> >>At the bottom of the columns, I calculated correlations over the period >>1881-1981. These are 0.56 for CSIB, 0.75 for WSIB, and 0.85 for NEUR (MXD >>against Apr-Sep temperatures). >> >>Table 1 in your paper, however, says 0.51 for CSIB, 0.83 for WSIB, and >>0.87 for NEUR (Column "Intrannual" Period 1881-1981). >> >>Since this (and other numbers for TRW) are not SYSTEMATICALLY off, I am a >>bit worried that I got the right data. Of course, it could also be that I >>did a stupid mistake. In this case, I will get a beer for you on Monday... >>I just need some confidence to continue with the data Tim sent me. >> >>Thank you >>Jan 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm