From: Ed Cook
To: Keith Briffa
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 16:45:18 -0400
You probably haven't seen the newest version, which has not yet been
"...Sorry for sounding a bit testy here.
I've been fielding a whole raft of
questions, comments, and criticisms from Mike Mann, Tom Crowley, and
Malcolm Hughes. Some of them useful, many of them tiresome or besides the
I never wanted to get involved in this quixotic game of producing
the next great NH temperature reconstruction because of the professional
politics and sensitivities involved.
All I wanted to do was demonstate with
Jan that Broecker was wrong, something that you have obviously done a few
times before but in journals that Broecker and others don't follow closely
(I guess. I should also say that the amount of ignorance about tree rings
in the global change/paleo/modeling community is staggering given what has
been published. Like it or not, they simply don't read our papers.). In so
doing, it seemed reasonable to compare the RCS chronology against the
hockey stick because that is the series that Broecker was railing against.
That is why I didn't bother to compare the series against all the other
records produced by you, Phil, and others. Jan originally did that, but I
chose to restrict the comparison to tighten the focus of the paper. More
reference to your results is clearly justified, so maybe I was wrong here.
This all reinforces my determination to leave this NH/global temperature
reconstruction junk behind me once I get this paper submitted. It's not
worth the aggravation.
However, the paper is something that I need to do
And I still think it is a good paper.
What I really mean is that you have written this paper implying that you
are getting low-frequency NH temperatures out of tree-ring data for the
first time- using the RCS. You set up this question then use a lot of data
in your analysis and the RCS as though they have not been analysed like
this before and then show you get more of a LIA than Mann , while
ignoring the fact that I have already produced calibrated summer
temperature curves (in the Science Perspective piece) from RCS ring width
data in Sweden , Urals , Taimyr and (in the JGR paper) using banded
density - which both show more low frequency than MBH.
The real question is whether MBH use data in tropical and mid latitudes that supress what is
really a high latitude summer signal in their northen predictors ?
I just don't think you are being very fair here- despite how many times you cite
me ( perhaps the citations should anyway reflect the useful contributions
to a particular area even if they number more than a token couple)
that's off my chest now
>Professor Keith Briffa,
>Climatic Research Unit
>University of East Anglia
>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.