date: Wed Sep 27 15:59:58 2006
from: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Your paper submitted to the Holocene
to: w.jinglu@niglas.ac.cn

   Dear sir
   I am sorry to have to inform you that after receiving referee's reports , we feel that we
   are not able to accept your paper
   Possible solar forcing of 400-year wet-dry climate cycles in northwestern China
   for publication in the Holocene.
    Please accept my apologies for the time it has taken to reach this decision - but after
   receiving only very abrupt and brief communications from the two initial referees, both of
   which returned a generally negative opinion , we took the time to solicit a further review
   - copied below. Unfortunately the negative content of this review has made it inevitable
   that we must decline to publish at this time.
   Although I realise that this response is bound to be somewhat disappointing , I hope that
   it will not  discourage you and your colleagues from submitting further  manuscripts in the
   future. Thank you for submitting his paper and I hope we will be able to view any future
   submissions in a more positive way.
   yours sincerely
   Keith Briffa
   Associate Editor  - The Holocene
   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   ---------------------------------------------------------------
   Review of manuscript by Wu, Yu, Zeng and Wang
   "Possible solar forcing of 400-year wet-dry climate cycles in northwestern China"
   This paper presents results from a new lake sediment record in NW China, covering
   approximately the last 1500 years.  This is an interesting area in which to develop new
   records spanning this time period and the authors should be encouraged in their endeavours
   to do so.  Despite this, I do not recommend that the present manuscript should be
   published, for two main reasons.
   First, the age-model cannot be relied upon with confidence.  For most of the length of the
   record the age-model appears to be defined by the untested assumption of constant
   sedimentation rate between the surface and one single calibrated radiocarbon date.  Not
   only is this assumption not tested by using further dates (except in the top 8cm of a
   neighbouring core, compared with the 150cm of the main core) but the changes in sediment
   composition which are interpreted as major changes in river inflow would surely cast doubt
   upon this assumption?  The age-model is, of course, important anyway, but becomes even more
   so because of the comparisons made later in the manuscript with other records, including
   interpreting those comparisons as evidence for a response to changes in solar forcing.
   Second, the comparisons made between different indicator time series within the new core,
   and also with records from elsewhere in the region or the world, are not done with
   sufficient quantitative rigour to justify the conclusions that are made.
   The doubtful age-model should not limit the use of quantitative statistical methods (at
   least simple correlation coefficients) for the comparison between the different indicators,
   because the multiple proxies were presumably derived from the same depths of the same core
   and therefore age-model errors will affect all these proxy series in the same way.  These
   comparisons should, therefore, be more quantitative.  For example it is stated that the
   oxygen and carbon isotopes of the bulk carbonate have "a tendency to covary": this
   statement is not clearly supported by a visual comparison, so state the correlation between
   these series.  The del18O does not, for example, appear to show the "large negative
   excursions" in 750 or 1050, and neither isotope shows a negative excursion at the stated
   1650 date.  There are other cases too that the authors should re-visit using quantitiative
   statistics to support the conclusions that they draw from their data.
   The doubtful age-model does invalidate the comparisons made with other records and the
   radiocarbon record and so these should be removed completely from the manuscript (e.g. all
   of page 11, first half of page 12, points 3 and 4 in the conclusions and figures 4 and 5.
   Even if the age model was good enough to justify such comparisons, the comparisons are not
   made rigorously.  For example, the lake record wet intervals "appear to correlate" with
   snow accumulation rate and snow oxygen isotopes -- do they correlate or don't they?  State
   the correlation coefficient.  Visually, it looks as if they may correlate with the rate,
   but not at all with the isotopes!  There is a "close correlation" between the lake organic
   matter del13C record and snow accumulation -- if true, state the correlation coefficient.
   Visually this statement looks false.  Another problem is that the MWP is not well-defined
   and it is not possible therefore to have confidence in the stated onset and termination
   dates (
   for which region? dates are probably different in different places!) nor their coincidence
   with wet intervals in the poorly-dated lake record.
   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------PLEASE NOTE _ Other
   reviews very brief and merely stated that dating and analyses did not justify conclusions -
   but both said not prepared to provide detailed comments
   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------

   --
   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/

