To: Tim Osborn <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Tom Wigley <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: bradley comment
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:01:50 -0400
Cc: Keith Briffa <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Phil Jones <email@example.com>, "Raymond S. Bradley" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
I suggest we let Eos size the figures, etc. Then, in the end, we can simply substitute a
version of Figure 2 w/ the correlations added at the proof stage. Anything else will slow
down the publication of the manuscript unnecessarily, in my opinion.
Phil and I have already discussed--we agree that the low weight given to the record in the
Mann and Jones composite treats the record appropriately...
At 02:37 PM 6/24/2003 +0100, Tim Osborn wrote:
In Phil's absence I was just now looked at his PC because I needed some files/emails for
a separate matter, and I noticed that you had emailed Phil/Ray/Mike concurring with
Ray's concerns. Until I saw that, I hadn't realised that anyone else had commented on
Yang et al.
Keith and I discussed exactly this issue this morning, and though Keith also had
concerns about the record (I haven't read their paper, so can't comment) we decided to
leave things as they were because: (i) Mike suggested adding correlations to the figure
at the proof stage rather than now; (ii) I wasn't sure how to word a caveat about Yang
et al. without making it seem odd that we were including a doubtful record and odd that
we hadn't added caveats about some of the other records.
The current status is that the version I circulated has been submitted back to EOS
(because of the reasons given above), and Ellen Mosley-Thompson has approved it. It
needs to be reviewed internally at AGU by either Fred Spilhaus or an Associate Editor.
It will then be edited to reflect the Eos newspaper style.
I've cc'd this to Mike and Phil to see what they want to do. I/we can put a hold on the
processing of the current submission and then submit a new version with revised figure
and caption. Alternatively we could wait and see what it's like after EOS have edited
it, and then make any final modifications at that stage.
Over to you/Mike/Phil.
At 14:00 24/06/2003, you wrote:
I think it is *extremely* important to cover Ray's point about Yang et al. and Mike
Mann's response about weighting. This requires a small addition to the Figure caption.
Dr Timothy J Osborn
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
phone: +44 1603 592089
fax: +44 1603 507784
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137