[Jean S: I think that was not there originally, but I could be mistaken. Anyhow, that is good enough for me, and from my point of view the issue is now solved.]

[Anthony: I added a credit to Jean S. at the end, after about 10 minutes of the post being up, realizing I’d forgotten to give this important credit. This was sometime around 12:30-1AM PDT I think, supported by the timing of this laudatory comment about Jean S. Somehow as luck would have it Jean S. must have read in those few minutes or didn’t see the credit at the bottom. I always try to give credit where it is due. Apologies for the brief oversight and gender confusion from the name which is also fixed.]

I think this is already hilarious: Anthony managed to write yet-another-post on the issue without mentioning my name I have to wonder what I’ve done to piss him off.

Steve: I see that this is resolved. I can’t imagine that Anthony would make an intentional slight to you.

The program is a toolbox which I use to standardise tree rings and create chronologies, it changes frequently, and includes many options to generate chronologies. At this stage there is insufficient documentation for public release of the program but I am currently updating the documentation in order to have a version of the program that I can release. Hopefully this will be ready within a month.”

Based on Dr. Melvin’s reply, I will have to continue to ponder how the tree ring proxies in the withdrawn Gergis paper were processed. I was not able to duplicate or even approximate there results using all the available tree ring data from the Australasian area and with the commonly applied chronologies. I would hope that the reviewers of the new version of that paper require that their methods dealing with tree ring proxies are provided such that the work can be duplicated.

On looking again at the withdrawn paper I have excerpted the following statement:

“All tree ring chronologies were developed based on raw measurements using the signal-free detrending method (Melvin et al., 2007; Melvin and Briffa, 2008).”

The 2008 reference from the withdrawn Gergis paper is linked below and describes the method I had asked Dr. Melvin to provide and the one to which he replied above. The mystery in attempting to track down what was actually used by Gergis in the withdrawn paper continues.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/melvin/Melvin2008/Melvin2008.pdf

By the way, there are other issues with the withdrawn Gergis paper – such as why they defined a geographical area of interest and then went outside that area to obtain some high leverage proxies.

1. Will Gergis, Karoly and co credit Jean S and Climate Audit for finding the errors?

2. Will the paper be included in AR5?

3. Is the reconstruction now more or less like a hockey stick?

4. Are the stats and the data kosher?

The when is a door not a door aspects bother me not.