Tuesday, December 20, 2011


From: "Wahl, Eugene R" <wahle@alfred.edu>
To: "Jonathan Overpeck" <jto@u.arizona.edu>
Subject: RE: Wahl Ritson Ammann Science article on vonStorch 04
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:32:19 -0500
Cc: "Keith Briffa" <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>, "Eystein Jansen" <eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no>, "Caspar Ammann" <ammann@ucar.edu>

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.

paragraph in copied message below that supports citation.)

Peace, Gene


Dr. Eugene R. Wahl
Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies
Alfred University


********************** copied message below ********************

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*.


Tara S. Marathe
Associate Online Editor, Science

*********************** end copied message ******************

No comments:

Post a Comment