http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/2008/03/claude-allgre-m.html

Without sorting out the bucket adjustments, I’m doubtful that one can put much weight on any 20th century explanations. Earlier toilers in the same fields as Courtillot (e.g. George Reid) tended to use SST rather than land temperatures in solar-temperature discussions. It would have been open to Courtillot to use SST in their calculation. I’ve experimented a little with SST without bucket adjustment and there’s probably a better case available than Courtillot actually used.

The dates presently shown are obviously not right for the reasons I posted yesterday, regarding protocols I would have expected something like ‘original version received Oct 8th, revision received Nov 15th’ or some such (those dates just for illustration). Dates are very important to establish priority, it might not be so important in a response but in this case B&D have a case to argue because at present without the revision date it could make some of their comment look odd. It looks as if the editorial board is trying to ‘tidy up’ something this way with the removal of the note as well. Perhaps the print versions out next month will have a more rational timeline? At the moment the scenario that the response went on-line before the comment is absurd. The response is rather lame in any case, it completely misses the point on the first comment and still covers up the fact that Tglobe is actually N hemisphere extratropical summer!

Steve the dates don’t match, I can’t check the library from home but Bard & Delaygue’s comment was accepted on 29 Sept and subsequently had the ‘note added in proof’ added to it (after 23rd Oct), the on-line version was available 13th Oct. The note was subsequently removed and replaced by the response I linked on here earlier today. The date on the response 5th Oct implies that the response to the comment by B&D was received on the same day as the comment and published a week before it! Since that clearly didn’t happen this can only refer to the ‘note’ or an earlier form of the response, the current response is a significant document, clearly not something produced overnight and can’t have been written in its present form before the end of Oct.
Clearly there is some obfuscation going on re the dates, based on B&D’s note there must have been two versions of the response and the earliest the second version could have been produced was November. Raypierre says that the original version was on-line through Dec 15th which seems likely.

The temperature series we actually used is obtained from Briffa et al. (2001) – specifically, column 7 of ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/n_hem_temp/briffa2001jgr3.txt, that is, years 1871 to 1997 – which is, originally, from Jones et al., (1999) as quoted. All we did was to average it over an 11 yr sliding window.

This is a correct statement of provenance and would that the Team were so clear.

On Dec 18, Pierrehumbert posted up the following statement:

So if Courtillot’s data is not Jones’ global mean temperature, what is it that Courtillot plotted? We may never know. In his response to Bard and Delaygue, Courtillot claims the data came from a file called: monthly_land_and_ocean_90S_90N_df_1901-2001mean_dat.txt.

When I observed that the Courtillot graph could be replicated, NASA employee Gavin Schmidt stated:

Response: I suggest you read the post in it’s entirety. It will therefore be clear that the ‘We may never know’ comment was written before the location of the real data used was revealed in the update to the Courtillot response (now available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2007.09.031). Well done for reading it though. -gavin]

Now I realize that there seem to be two iterations of the Courtillot Reply. Question – has the version presently online been changed since Oct 5, when it was said to have been placed online. If it has not been changed, then Gavin’s statement quoted above is false; Pierrehumbert could readily have determined the correct provenance of the data long before he posted up on Dec 18 and these particular accusations should not have been made.

If the online version was changed between Oct 5 and Dec 18, 2007, then the circumstances obviously differ. Does anyone know the facts?

http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordm%C3%A4n

Or you prefer ‘Varyag’? They did a good job for creating Russia/Ukraine state! :

http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varjag