Tuesday, November 29, 2011


date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 17:48:39 UT
from: grlonlineatXYZxyz.org
subject: 2005GL024155 Request to Review from Geophysical Research Letters
to: K.BriffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk

Dear Dr. Briffa:

Would you be willing and available to review "Are empirical climate reconstruction methods robust?" by Gerd Bürger, Ulrich Cubasch, submitted for possible publication in the Geophysical Research Letters.

The manuscript's abstract is:

64 climate reconstructions, based on regression of temperature
fields on multi-proxies and mutually distinguished by at least
one of six standard criteria, cover an entire spread of
millennial histories. No single criterion is accountable for the
spread, which appears to depend on a complicated interplay of
the criteria. The uncertainty is traced back to the fact that
regression is applied here in an extrapolative manner, with
millennial variations exceeding the standard calibration scale
by a factor of 5 and more. Even if linearity still holds for
that larger domain, the model error propagates in a way that is
proportional to both the estimation error and the proxy
variations, and is thus extrapolated accordingly. This is
particularly critical for the parameter-loaded models of the
analyzed kind. Without a model error estimate and without
techniques to hold it small, it is not clear how these methods
can be salvaged to become robust.

If you agree to review this manuscript, I would ask for your comments within 14 days from your acceptance.

To ACCEPT, click on the link below:


If you are unable to review this manuscript at this time, I would appreciate any suggestions of other potential reviewers who would be qualified to examine this manuscript. (Via reply e-mail.)

To DECLINE, click on the link below:


If you have any questions or need more information feel free to reply to this e-mail.

Thank you for your consideration and support of Geophysical Research Letters.


Naohiro Yoshida
Associate Editor
Geophysical Research Letters

No comments:

Post a Comment