date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:44:40 -0600
from: "Eugene.R.Wahl" <Eugene.R.Wahl@noaa.gov>
subject: Re: Editors' comments on chapter outlines (Handbook of
to: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk, David Frank <david.frank@wsl.ch>

   Hi Keith and David:
   Sorry for the delay in responding.  Quite a lot it going on, and I was out for a week
   teaching in Indiana (environmental ethics, which I do once per year to graduate students --
   fun but demanding as I teach a half-term in 5-6 days).
   Keith, thanks.  You are gracious in the note below, and we weren't daunted by your
   responses.  They are helpful, and know we are considering them carefully in our writing.
   Sorry I don't have more time right now, but know that we are writing away.
   Hi David:  Sorry to you also re: no communication for over a week.  I'm pushing along with
   all dispatch I can create.  I'll get in touch just after this with some more specific
   replies to your last message.
   Thanks to you both.
Peace, Gene

   [1]K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk wrote:

Thanks Gene and Frank
sorry about the rambling style and lack of proof reading in my message  -
was just rushing to send before leaving work. On re-reading it myself, it
sounds too dictatorial - I would not presume to tell you what to write -
sorry if it came over like that . My intention was to try to be helpful
but I sound rudely prescriptive! Honestly this was not meant - I really
look forward to reading your text

cheers
Keith




 > Thanks a lot Keith, in particular for the detail.  We will make good use

of this direction.  David and I are already talking about it.

Peace, Gene


Keith Briffa wrote:

Eugene and Dave
sorry not to get back to you before (but this was my really heavy
teaching period - now running down). In fact generally what you intend
is fine though perhaps with a bit more focus on philosophy rather than
mechanics. Let me try to explain -
First let me say that the I agree  with John about not using the
Appendix route. So your plan as outlined as 3 sections is ok. The
brief illusion to specific proxies and cross-referencing is the way to
go but "good" examples of various types is very acceptable. Let me say
though that we do not need too much "standard" stuff on trees that can
be found elsewhere - just appropriate focus on issues and signposts to
literature - but rather a discussion of concepts that show potential
and current difficulties of high-resolution data (including
specifically intra-annual as well as inter-annual) as distinct from
other types of (less-resolved) proxies. Major stress on the ubiquitous
use of empirical interpretation of climate controls of proxies (and
inferred assumption of the stability of uniformitarianism underlying
these regression approaches) would is important (as is lack of true
process understanding to date in many studies - or at least
demonstrable evidence in consistency of  such with regression-based
results in existing studies). Also we need discussion of how current
methods  emphasise  climate variability, potentially loosing or
attenuating evidence of (multi-century) climate change. Yes you could
discuss how the precision enables hypothesis testing about very -short
time scale forcings and responses and the definition of precisely
delineated patterns of reconstructed change in space also -  because
of the facility to average accurately , while less resolved data ,
calibrated with spatial regression -  possibly over state the latter
evidence or at least produce reconstructions with such wide confidence
bands that they effectively tell us nothing useful about medium time
scales of change , say centuries. However, this begs the question of
the Hockey-Stick debate (the Von Storch , Burger stuff) and the
limited basis (in terms of proxies and coverage) that it provides
(because of the need to respect resolution and climate sensitivity
issues). Don't be afraid to attack this issue head on.

I like your section 3 by the sound of it .  In practise, it will be
hard to judge the appropriate level of detail needed for specific
proxy types - so think in concepts with examples rather than the rigid
proxy type approach (such as was used in our recent Holocene review) -
and if in doubt , do less now and leave it to the authors to juggle
the balance between chapters later. Your focus though on the dendro
will , however , be in this chapter only.

Basically , what you are doing is fine , but think what you believe
limits our understanding of current proxies and what we need to do
and remember that the future ideals are what you are trying to
identify and , so facilitate. I know this sounds a lot like what we
tried to do in that review paper - and perhaps it is - but it gives
you the chance to put your stamp on the debate. Good luck and thanks
for taking this on
Keith



 At 17:02 06/03/2009, Eugene Wahl wrote:

OK, I will await guidance from you on settling this question.
Inclusion of the material on dendro methods in the main text would
take us back to the original 3 main sections, just with section 2 on
Methods focused largely on dendro -- with the various other
high-resolution methods briefly mentioned and then referenced to the
other relevant chapters on them for more detail.  This structure is
fine with me.

By the way, please include David Frank, my co-author, on this
correspondence as it develops.  Thanks very much.

Peace, Gene

Dr. Eugene R. Wahl
Physical Scientist
NOAA/NESDIS/NCDC/Paleoclimate Branch



Keith Briffa wrote:

Have been very busy with teaching will send comments next week
Keith

At 10:04 06/03/2009, Matthews J.A. wrote:

Dear Eugene

OK, but I would prefer the `tree-ring proxy' material to be
integrated into the chapter (rather than an add-on appendix).
Perhaps this could be achieved by describing section 2 as a case
study of  the most important proxy.
I am very disappointed th\at Keith Briffa has failed to send me any
editorial comments on any chapter - I know he expressed particular
interest in your chapter (perhaps this will prompt some comments).


John

John A. Matthews
Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography
Editor of The Holocene

Department of Geography
School of the Environment and Society
University of Wales Swansea
SWANSEA SA2 8PP

Home phone/fax:  +44 1633 413 291

Office phone:  +44 1792 295563
Office fax:      +44 1792 295955

E-mail:
[2]<mailto:J.A.Matthews@Swansea.ac.uk>[3]J.A.Matthews@Swansea.ac.uk


----------
From: Eugene Wahl [[4]mailto:Eugene.R.Wahl@noaa.gov]
Sent: Fri 3/6/2009 1:09 AM
To: Matthews J.A.; David Frank
Subject: Re: Editors' comments on chapter outlines (Handbook of
Environmental change)

Hello Dr. Matthews:

I have looked over the outline of the chapter I am co-authoring
with David Frank (c. 15), and note that the one editor's comment
suggests a significant abbreviating of the description of proxy
methods that is set forth in section 2 of the outline.

I think this is a valuable suggestion, and based on it, I want to
suggest that David and I implement it with one important change.
The change would be this:   we would mention the various methods in
an introduction and reference the other relevant chapters on them
for more detail, with the exception of dendrochronological data,
which we would describe in some detail in a "Tree-Ring Proxy
Methods" section that would act as a kind of appendix to the chapter.

Please let us know what you think of this alteration.  The outline
as set forth in sections 1 and 3 would otherwise remain unchanged,
except that the former "section 3" would now constitute the actual
section 2 -- with what had been the second section before becoming
the ending methods section described above.


Peace, Gene

Dr. Eugene R. Wahl

Physical Scientist
NOAA/NESDIS/NCDC/Paleoclimate Branch

325 Broadway Street
Boulder, CO 80305

PHONE:  303-497-6297
FAX:    303-497-6513
[5]<http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html>[6]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html

