From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
Subject: McIntyre and D'Arrigo et al (submitted)
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:20:00 +0100
Cc: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>

<x-flowed>
Dear Phil, Eystein and Peck,

I've already talked about this to Phil and Keith, but for Eystein's 
and Peck's benefit the emails copied below relate to McIntyre 
downloading a PDF of a manuscript cited by the IPCC paleo chapter and 
then apparently trying to interfere with the editorial process that 
the paper is currently going through at JGR.

I think this is an abuse of McIntyre's position as an IPCC reviewer.

Rosanne replied to my email below, to say that they *do* want this 
taken further.  So...

Phil has agreed to forward these messages to Susan Solomon and Michael Manning.

Eystein and Peck: do you want to add anything too?

Cheers

Tim

>Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:08:22 +0100
>To: "Rob Wilson" <rob.wilson@ed.ac.uk>, "Rosanne D'Arrigo" 
><druidrd@ldeo.columbia.edu>
>From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>
>Subject: Re: Fw: D'Arrigo et al, submitted
>Cc: <K.briffa@uea.ac.uk>
>
>Dear Rob and Rosanne,
>
>I strongly agree that this is an abuse of his position as IPCC 
>reviewer!  The data archiving issues are a separate issue because I 
>think there's no need for the data you used to be publicly available 
>until the paper is actually published, and I would hope that the 
>editor would respond appropriately.  But the other comments could 
>clearly influence the editorial/review process and this is very 
>unfair when your paper has already been reviewed by 
>others.  McIntyre could of course submit a comment after your paper 
>was published if he wished to criticize certain aspects, and that is 
>the route he should have followed.  He tried to stop publication of 
>a paper that I was a co-author on, Rutherford et al. (2005), by 
>contacting the editor of J. Climate with various criticisms - 
>fortunately the editor told him firmly that the route to take was to 
>submit a comment after publication.  However, in our case the paper 
>was already in press.  In your case, with the editor's decision 
>still to be made, there is clearly more scope for McIntyre to 
>influence the decision in your case - and this certainly should not happen.
>
>The conditions which McIntyre (and all other IPCC reviewers) agreed 
>to before downloading your manuscript were:
>
>"This site also provides access to copies of some submitted, 
>in-press, or otherwise unpublished papers and reports that are cited 
>in the draft WG I report. All such material is made available only 
>to support the review of the IPCC drafts. These works are not 
>themselves subject to the IPCC review process and are not to be 
>distributed, quoted or cited without prior permission from their 
>original authors in each instance."
>
>I don't think that contacting the journal editor with criticisms is 
>"only to support the review of the IPCC drafts".
>
>I will take this issue up with the chapter lead authors and the WG1 
>technical support unit - unless you prefer that I didn't.  Please let me know.
>
>Cheers
>
>Tim
>
>At 08:33 28/09/2005, Rob Wilson wrote:
>>Hi Tim and Keith,
>>please see the e-mail (below) from Steve Macintyre to the Editor of JGR.
>>
>>This seems a major abuse of his position as reviewer for IPCC?
>>
>>In some respects, I don't mind having to address his comments (many 
>>of which are already adequately explained I think, although a 
>>detailed list of all data used could certainly go in an 
>>appendix),  but this just seems a bit off. After all, we have 
>>addressed the reviewers comments and are currently awaiting a 
>>decision. This e-mail may effect the decision greatly.
>>
>>Is he going to do this for all papers he does not quite agree with.
>>
>>comments?
>>
>>Rob
>>
>>----------
>>
>>
>>>From: "Steve McIntyre" 
>>><<mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca>stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca>
>>>To: "Colin O'Dowd" <<mailto:jgr@nuigalway.ie>jgr@nuigalway.ie>
>>>Cc: "Rob Wilson" 
>>><<mailto:rjwilson_dendro@blueyonder.co.uk>rjwilson_dendro@blueyonder.co.uk>,
>>>         "Rosanne D'Arrigo" 
>>> <<mailto:druidrd@ldeo.columbia.edu>druidrd@ldeo.columbia.edu>
>>>Subject: D'Arrigo et al, submitted
>>>Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:37:06 -0400
>>>Dear Dr O'Dowd,
>>>I am a reviewer for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 4AR) 
>>>and am writing in respect to a submission to your journal by 
>>>D'Arrigo et al., entitled "On the Long-Term Context for Late 20th 
>>>Century Warming." This article was referenced in chapter 6 of the 
>>>Draft IPCC 4AR and made available to IPCC reviewers. In the course 
>>>of my review, I contacted the senior author, Dr. D'Arrigo, for the 
>>>FTP location of the data used in this article or for alternative 
>>>access to the data. Dr D'Arrigo categorically refused and I was 
>>>referred to the journal editor if I desired recourse.
>>>
>>>
>>>Data Citation and Archiving
>>>I point out that AGU policies for data citation and data archiving 
>>>(<http://www.agu.org/pubs/data_policy.html>http://www.agu.org/pubs/data_policy.html 
>>>) specifically require that authors provide data citation 
>>>according to AGU standards and require that contributors archive 
>>>data in permanent archives, such as the World Data Center for 
>>>Paleoclimatology. For example, the policy states:
>>>
>>>
>>>1. Data sets cited in AGU publications must meet the same type of 
>>>standards for public access and long-term availability as are 
>>>applied to citations to the scientific literature. Thus data cited 
>>>in AGU publications must be permanently archived in a data center …
>>>2. Data sets that are available only from the author, through 
>>>miscellaneous public network services, or academic, government or 
>>>commercial institutions not chartered specifically for archiving 
>>>data, may not be cited in AGU publications.
>>>
>>>
>>>On page 21 of D'Arrigo et al., there is a listing of "regional 
>>>groupings" of data. In some cases, part of the data is archived at 
>>>WDCP; in other cases, the data has been collected by the authors, 
>>>but has not been archived.
>>>
>>>
>>>In cases, where the data has been archived, it has not been cited 
>>>according to AGU policies. For example, the Torntraesk site is 
>>>presumably swed019w, but this is not stated. The Polar Urals site 
>>>appears to be a combination of russ021w, russ176w and russ022w, 
>>>but this is not stated. The Quebec site appears to be a version of 
>>>cana036, but a version that differs from the one archived, as it 
>>>includes more series. The "Mongolia" site appears to be the 
>>>authors' mong003 site, but a different version than the one 
>>>archived (which commences at a different date). The "Yukon" series 
>>>is a combination of two sites, which are not stated. At least one 
>>>of the sites is a different version from the one archived. The 
>>>Icefields site is again a different version than the one archived. 
>>>Other data sets e.g. Seward, NW North America, Central Alaska, 
>>>Wrangells, Coast Alaska, Central NWT, Southern Alaska, have been 
>>>collected by the authors and are either not archived at all or 
>>>archived in obsolete versions.
>>>
>>>
>>>In order that this submission comply with AGU policies on data 
>>>archiving, I request that you require D'Arrigo et al. do (1) 
>>>provide accurate data citations complying with AGU policies for 
>>>all data sets presently archived at WDCP; (2) archive all "grey" 
>>>data used in the article.
>>>
>>>
>>>Methodology
>>>The results of this article depend on methodological details, 
>>>especially as to standardization procedures. However, these 
>>>procedures are not described in objective or operational terms. I 
>>>will illustrate some examples below:
>>>  Page 21 – "In select cases, a power transform (PT) was applied 
>>> to correct for data biases. This bias was assessed by correlation 
>>> and residual analysis against both local and large scale 
>>> temperature series."  In which cases was PT applied and what were 
>>> the objective criteria in the correlation and residual analysis, 
>>> which were used to determine whether this should be applied.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Page 21 – "Due to differing populations in the TR data, the 
>>>data-sets were often grouped into 'common' populations. No one 
>>>strategy is appropriate for all data-sets and careful evaluation 
>>>of each composite data-set was made." That's nice, but what were 
>>>the operational criteria which were  used to allocate each case to 
>>>the 5 different alternative procedures.
>>>
>>>
>>>Page 7 – "The standard error of the regression estimate (standard 
>>>deviation of the regression residuals) from the full period 
>>>calibration was used to generate the 2 sigma error bars and this 
>>>was also adjusted (inflated) to account for the change (decrease) 
>>>in explained variance in each nest." – The last adjustment is not 
>>>described in operational terms. Shouldn't the standard error be 
>>>realistically measured by the standard deviation from the 
>>>verification period residuals?
>>>
>>>
>>>Page 20. "Successful modeling of paleoclimate data with the high 
>>>temperatures of the late 1990s is essential if we are to make 
>>>robust, definitive conclusions about past temperature amplitudes 
>>>and variability." Abstract – "presently-available paleoclimatic 
>>>reconstructions are inadequate for making specific inferences, at 
>>>hemispheric scales, about MWP warmth relative to the anthropogenic 
>>>period and that such comparisons can only still be made at the 
>>>local/regional scale." Page 13. "After this period [mid-1980s], 
>>>the divergence between the tree-ring and instrumental data results 
>>>in weakening of calibration results and failed verification 
>>>statistics". The authors contradict these caveats by proceeding to 
>>>make a variety of inferences and claims "at hemispheric scales" 
>>>about MWP warmth or lack thereof relative to the modern period. A 
>>>comparison of their reconstruction to instrumental temperatures is 
>>>prominently made in the Abstract, on page 10 and page 14. If the 
>>>reconstructions are inadequate for making these inferences, then 
>>>don't make them.
>>>
>>>
>>>Thank you for your consideration,
>>>
>>>
>>>Yours truly,
>>>Stephen 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:      http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm

</x-flowed>

