date: Fri Apr 28 17:04:18 2006
from: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Fwd: Re: Ruherford et al 2005
to: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>

   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" <stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca>
     To: "Tim Osborn" <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>
     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" <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>
     To: "Steve McIntyre" <stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca>
     Cc: "Andrew Weaver" <jclim@uvic.ca>; "Keith Briffa" <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>
     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
     >

