date: 02 Oct 2009 14:16:54 -0400
from: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov>
subject: Re: thanks and one question
to: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>

thanks for the background. 

Gavin

PS. In case anyone back in the UK is in a litigious mood, this is
clearly libellous:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5389461/the-great-global-warming-scam-ctd.thtml
and the spectator has deep pockets. :-)

On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 03:43, Phil Jones wrote:
>   Gavin,
>      Possibly the Russians should or could have put the data up from 
> their 2002 paper. At the time they probably just never thought of doing it.
>     Keith published the paper in Phil Trans in 2008 and Mc wrote to 
> the Royal Soc asking for the data. This was put up after some 
> delay.  A person at Phil Trans did request that Keith do this towards 
> the end of last year. They didn't follow this up with additional 
> emails. By the time Keith got around to it he then had the kidney 
> issue - which might have been cancerous until the operation.
>     Tim's told me that Mc did ask for the data after the 2006 Science 
> paper.  Rob Wilson was on a tree-ring paper with Gordon Jacoby and 
> Rosanne D'Arrigo and they asked Rob for the data. Rob said he 
> couldn't put it up as it was LDEO data. They criticised Gordon and 
> Rosanne but not Rob. Rob used to occasionally go on CA.
> 
>      A year or two back we got a few more modern sites for the Yamal 
> region from the Russians. Tom Melvin and Keith are using this in 
> their longer response, so they should put that up when they put this 
> longer response up. Some of these and another of Schweingruber's show 
> growth increases. It seems that Mc has chosen the one with the least 
> increase. By early next week they are hoping to put more up.
> 
>     We're trying to get the new site details from the Russians - more 
> than what we have in the location info. Those with little increase 
> appear to be more close canopy forests,  but those with an increase 
> seem to be more open stand forests where the trees are further apart 
> and don't close off the canopy. It's all near the tree line and you 
> get spots of closed (possibly due to being less exposed or slightly 
> better soil) and open canopy. It all depends on where the relic would 
> came from  - in northern Sweden and Finland it is the more open stands.
> 
>    You've made clear that the chronology is built first - then we 
> look at the climate response. A few dendro types have been caught 
> only putting in individual cores that agree with the instrumental but 
> this isn't the way we've ever worked.
> 
>     In most dendro work more cores are taken in the field than are 
> read. This is just good practice as you're in the field and you take 
> advantage of having got their. You might not read them all due to 
> time. Cores get rejected because of a number of breaks, compression 
> wood and a number of other factors. All done though before any 
> climate data enter the fray.
> 
>   Cheers
>   Phil
> 
> 
> At 19:33 01/10/2009, you wrote:
> >so the commenters are out in force this morning....! Thanks for your
> >input into the piece.
> >
> >One question, what is the back story behind the idea that Keith refused
> >to put the raw data online? Surely this fell to the Russians to do?
> >
> >(As usual, it is access and transparency issues which motivate people to
> >get all hot and bothered rather than methodological choices for
> >standardisation....  ;)  ).
> >
> >gavin
> 
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
> NR4 7TJ
> UK 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------                                                                                 
> 
> 

