From	Jonathan T. Overpeck	Date	Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:50:28 -0700
To	Eugene R
CC	Keith Briffa, Eystein Jansen, Caspar Ammann, Stefan Rahmstorf, Eystein Jansen
Subject	Fwd: RE: Wahl Ritson Ammann Science article on vonStorch 04
Eugene - quite timely. Keith and Tim are doing the final revision tomorrow, and we've actually been debating if the vonStorch issue was handled just right. thx, peck >X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 >Subject: RE: Wahl Ritson Ammann Science article on vonStorch 04 >Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:38:06 -0500 >Thread-Topic: Wahl Ritson Ammann Science article on vonStorch 04 >Thread-Index: AcY3ZrWjPf6A8R9vTWeSE3GvqmgKLAFLDcogAACcoIA= >From: "Wahl, Eugene R" >To: "Jonathan Overpeck" >Cc: "Keith Briffa" , > "Eystein Jansen" , > "Caspar Ammann" > >Sorry, I sent the message without the text. [The "send" button is next >to the "insert" button on my software!!] Here it is. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Wahl, Eugene R >Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 1:32 PM >To: 'Jonathan Overpeck' >Cc: Keith Briffa; Eystein Jansen; 'Caspar Ammann' >Subject: RE: Wahl Ritson Ammann Science article on vonStorch 04 > >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. 5th >paragraph in copied message below, which supports citation.) > > >Peace, Gene > >******************************* > >Dr. Eugene R. Wahl >Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies >Alfred University > >607.871.2604 > > >********************** copied message below ******************** > > >February 28, 2006 received 10:31 am EST > >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*. > >Sincerely, > >Tara S. Marathe >Associate Online Editor, Science >tmarathe@aaas.org > >*********************** end copied message ****************** > >Content-Type: application/msword; > name="1120866RevisedText.doc" >Content-Description: 1120866RevisedText.doc >Content-Disposition: attachment; > filename="1120866RevisedText.doc" > > >Content-Type: image/jpeg; > name="1120866Fig.jpg" >Content-Description: 1120866Fig.jpg >Content-Disposition: attachment; > filename="1120866Fig.jpg" > -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\1120866RevisedText1.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\1120866Fig1.jpg"