Saturday, December 10, 2011

1014240346.txt

From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>
To: tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: Fwd: Re: SCIENCE review
Date: Wed Feb 20 16:25:46 2002

Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 13:48:13 +0000
To: "Jesse Smith" <hjsmith@aaas.org>
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: SCIENCE review
Dear Jesse
I am sorry for messing you about with this but I really am leading a complicated life at
the moment. I am attaching my comments on The Esper et al manuscript . You will see that
I think the work is genuinely interesting and potentially of wide significance. The
bottom line is that you should publish this but the way the authors have chosen to
present their results smacks of a lack of clarity of thought (and a lot of fudging!) . I
believe that they are more concerned with trying to temper their ideas so as not to
"offend" Mann et al. They choose to present their work as a generalised demonstration
of how to process a tree-ring data set merely to argue against an unjustified remark
made by Broecker about tree-ring reconstructions in general. This simply devalues the
significance of their work as this refutation is out their in the literature already if
only Broecker bothered to check. By trying to skate around the real questions that
Broecker was implying - i.e. is the methodology removing the true low-frequency
variance in the Mann et al curve and is the magnitude of the Medieval warmth understated
? - Esper et al are obscuring the real message of their results - namely that Mann et
al do most likely loose the low frequency variance in their reconstruction and they may
very well be underestimating the Medieval warmth . To get at this the authors need to be
honest about what their data represent (probably summer and certainly not hemispheric
wide coverage ) and is this really that different from what Mann et al actually
represent (even though they believe their's is a mean annual Hemispheric record).
I think the authors present a too-simplistic discussion of their curve and then gloss
over these difficult but important issues.
So I really think they should be published , but they should think again about the
interpretation and message .
At 09:25 AM 11/27/01 -0500, you wrote:

Dear Keith,
No, it is not too late, so please send your review. Thanks a million.
Sincerely,
Jesse
=======================
Dr. Jesse Smith
Associate Editor
----------------------------------------------
Science
1200 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20005
USA
----------------------------------------------
(202) 326-6556
(202) 408-1256 (FAX)
hjsmith@aaas.org
=======================
>>> Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk> 11/27/01 09:17AM >>>
Is it too late for this or should I send a review by tomorrow?
Keith

--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.

Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.

Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa[3]/

References

1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
3. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

No comments:

Post a Comment