| From | Tim Osborn | Date | Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:20:00 +0100 |
|---|---|---|---|
| To | Phil Jones, Eystein Jansen, Jonathan T. Overpeck | ||
| CC | Keith Briffa | ||
| Subject | McIntyre and D'Arrigo et al (submitted) | ||
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" > >From: Tim Osborn >Subject: Re: Fw: D'Arrigo et al, submitted >Cc: > >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in-press, or otherwise unpublished papers and reports that are cited 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" >>>< >>>To: "Colin O'Dowd" < >>>Cc: "Rob Wilson" >>>< >>> "Rosanne D'Arrigo" >>> < >>>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 >>>( >>>) 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 | |||