cc: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>, Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@virginia.edu>, "Raymond S. Bradley" <rbradley@geo.umass.edu>
date: Tue Jun 24 14:37:29 2003
from: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Re: bradley comment
to: Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu>

   Hi Tom,
   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.
   Cheers
   Tim
   At 14:00 24/06/2003, you wrote:

     Tim,
     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.
     Tom.
