Tuesday, December 20, 2011

1141145428.txt

From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: "Wahl, Eugene R" <wahle@alfred.edu>
Subject: Fwd: RE: Wahl Ritson Ammann Science article on vonStorch 04
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:50:28 -0700
Cc: "Keith Briffa" <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>, "Eystein Jansen" <eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no>, "Caspar Ammann" <ammann@ucar.edu>, rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no>

<x-flowed>
Eugene - quite timely. Keith and Tim are doing the final revision
tomorrow, and we've actually been debating if the vonStorch issue was
handled just right.

thx, peck

>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>Subject: RE: Wahl Ritson Ammann Science article on vonStorch 04
>Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:38:06 -0500
>Thread-Topic: Wahl Ritson Ammann Science article on vonStorch 04
>Thread-Index: AcY3ZrWjPf6A8R9vTWeSE3GvqmgKLAFLDcogAACcoIA=
>From: "Wahl, Eugene R" <wahle@alfred.edu>
>To: "Jonathan Overpeck" <jto@u.arizona.edu>
>Cc: "Keith Briffa" <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>,
> "Eystein Jansen" <eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no>,
> "Caspar Ammann" <ammann@ucar.edu>
>
>Sorry, I sent the message without the text. [The "send" button is next
>to the "insert" button on my software!!] Here it is.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Wahl, Eugene R
>Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 1:32 PM
>To: 'Jonathan Overpeck'
>Cc: Keith Briffa; Eystein Jansen; 'Caspar Ammann'
>Subject: RE: Wahl Ritson Ammann Science article on vonStorch 04
>
>Hello Jonathan, Keith, and Eystein:
>
>I don't yet have any word from Steve Schneider concerning the
>Wahl-Ammann article on the MBH/MM issues...
>
>...HOWEVER, here is something that slipped under my radar screen, about
>which I should have made you aware previously. I've attached the
>ACCEPTED version of the Wahl-Ritson-Ammann comment article on the
>vonStorch et al. 2004 Science paper. This the article that criticizes
>MBH for very large low-frequency amplitude losses. The final acceptance
>from Science just came TODAY, and is copied below.
>
>In this comment article (specifically requested to be expanded to 1000
>words by the Science editors), we note that the calibration and
>verification performance of the MBH method as implemented in VS04 show
>really poor LF fidelity--which cannot happen if the MBH method is
>implemented according to its original form. We note this, which is
>explained by a significant omission on the part of VS04 in implementing
>the MBH methodology (a detrending step that was only disclosed later
>last year in a conference proceedings paper). We also comment on
>physical and statistical reasons why detrending is not appropriate in
>this context. We conclude that the large amplitude losses VS04 claims
>are simply not correct.
>
>I am imagining that this contextualization of the VS04 critique would
>also be relevant for your chapter, and it can now be considered "in
>press" as the from our Science correspondent notes below. I would think
>this acceptance makes it "citable". If not, I understand.
>
>
>NOTE THAT THIS ARTICLE IS SUBJECT TO THE USUAL SCIENCE EMBARGO RULES. I
>DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS MEANS CITATION IS EMBARGOED. (Cf. 5th
>paragraph in copied message below, which supports citation.)
>
>
>Peace, Gene
>
>*******************************
>
>Dr. Eugene R. Wahl
>Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies
>Alfred University
>
>607.871.2604
>
>
>********************** copied message below ********************
>
>
>February 28, 2006 received 10:31 am EST
>
>Dear Dr. Wahl,
>
>Below is the formal acceptance of your manuscript. The paper is
>technically not "in press" yet, though I assume that either "accepted"
>or "in press" would be acceptable.
>
>
>Dear Dr. Wahl,
>
>We are pleased to accept your revised Technical Comment on the paper by
>von Storch et al. for publication.
>
>The text of your comment will be edited to conform to *Science* style
>guidelines. Before publication you will receive galley proofs for
>author corrections. Please return the marked and corrected proofs, by
>fax or overnight express, within 48 hours of receipt.
>
>For authors with NIH grants intending to deposit the accepted version of
>their paper on PubMed Central, the following text must be displayed as a
>footnote with an asterisk to the manuscript title:
>
>"This manuscript has been accepted for publication in Science. This
>version has not undergone final editing. Please refer to the complete
>version of record at http://www.sciencemag.org/. This manuscript may
>not be reproduced or used in any manner that does not fall within the
>fair use provisions of the Copyright Act without the prior, written
>permission of AAAS."
>
>As noted in our License for Publication, the manuscript cannot be posted
>sooner than 6 months after final publication of the paper in Science.
>
>As you know, the full text of technical comments and responses appears
>on our website, Science Online, with abstracts published in the Letters
>section of the print *Science*.
>
>Thanks for your patience during this long process, and thanks for
>publishing in *Science*.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Tara S. Marathe
>Associate Online Editor, Science
>tmarathe@aaas.org
>
>*********************** end copied message ******************
>
>Content-Type: application/msword;
> name="1120866RevisedText.doc"
>Content-Description: 1120866RevisedText.doc
>Content-Disposition: attachment;
> filename="1120866RevisedText.doc"
>
>
>Content-Type: image/jpeg;
> name="1120866Fig.jpg"
>Content-Description: 1120866Fig.jpg
>Content-Disposition: attachment;
> filename="1120866Fig.jpg"
>


--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences

Mail and Fedex Address:

Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
fax: +1 520 792-8795
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
</x-flowed>

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\1120866RevisedText1.doc"

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\1120866Fig1.jpg"

No comments:

Post a Comment