if Team methodological descriptions were correct?
All ITRDB tree-ring proxy series were required to pass a series of minimum standards to be included in the network: (i) series must cover at least the interval 1750 to 1970, (ii) correlation between individual cores for a given site must be 0.50 for this period, (iii) there must be at least eight samples during the screened period 1800–1960 and for every year used.
I checked two series familiar to CA readers – Gaspe (cana036) and Sheep Mountain (ca534). Aside from any other issues with these series, the early portion of the Gaspe chronology has only a couple of samples as does the post-1983 portion of the Sheep Mountain chronology. I checked these series in both the “original” and “infilled” versions. The “original” version transcribed ITRDB crn series, including portions with fewer than 8 samples. The “infilled” version was identical to the “original” version where the original version had values. Thus, contrary to the statement in the SI, the “infilled” versions used data with only one sample.
Does it “matter”? Well, why say it if it’s untrue?