Original Filename: 1136918726.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink |
Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tom Wigley <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Keith Briffa <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Nature: Review of manuscript 2xxx xxxx xxxx
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:45:xxx xxxx xxxx
Thanx for this. Interesting. However, I do not think your
response is very good. Further, there are grammatical and
text errors, and (shocking!!) you have spelled McKitrick
wrong. This is a sure way to piss them off.
They claim that three cores do not cross-date for TRW.
They also say (without results) that the same applies to MXD
(these results may be in their Supp. Mat. -- I presume you
So, all you need say is ...
(1) TRW was not the only data used for cross-dating.
(2) When MXD is used there are clear t-value peaks,
contrary to their claim. You can show your Fig. 4 to prove
(3) The 3-core-composite cross-dates with other (well-dated)
chronologies (Yamal and Polurula), confirming the MXD-based
dating. You can show your Fig. 5 to prove this.
You could say all this in very few words -- not many more than
I have used above. As it is, your verbosity will leave any reader
There are some problems still. I note that 1032 is not cold in Yamal.
Seems odd. Is it cold in *all* of the three chronologies at issue?
Or did a reindeer crap next to one of the trees?
Also, there seems to be a one-year offset in the 1020s in your
I hope this is useful. I really think you have to do (and can do) a
better job in combatting the two Ms. If this stuff gets into Nature,
you still have a chance to improve it. Personally, I think it would
be good for it to appear since, with an improved response, you can
make MM look like ignorant idiots.