date: Wed Mar  1 07:37:36 2006
from: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Fwd: RE: Wahl Ritson Ammann Science article on vonStorch 04
to: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>

     Subject: RE: Wahl Ritson Ammann Science article on vonStorch 04
     Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:32:19 -0500
     X-MS-Has-Attach:
     X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
     Thread-Topic: Wahl Ritson Ammann Science article on vonStorch 04
     Thread-Index: AcY3ZrWjPf6A8R9vTWeSE3GvqmgKLAFLDcog
     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>
     X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
     X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
     X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
     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. 4th
     paragraph in copied message below that supports citation.)
     Peace, Gene
     *******************************
     Dr. Eugene R. Wahl
     Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies
     Alfred University
     607.871.2604
     ********************** 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 [1]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 ******************

   --
   Professor Keith Briffa,
   Climatic Research Unit
   University of East Anglia
   Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.

   Phone: +44-1603-593909
   Fax: +44-1603-507784
   [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

