Saturday, March 17, 2012

2603.txt

date: Tue Sep 22 13:37:25 1998
from: Keith Briffa <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: advice on manuscript K08434
to: gruddatXYZxyzgeo.su.se


Hakan
this is in confidence
Keith
>Return-path: <J.VandecaratXYZxyzure.com>
>Envelope-to: f023atXYZxyza11.uea.ac.uk
>Delivery-date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 12:34:02 +0100
>From: "VanDecar, John" <J.VandecaratXYZxyzure.com>
>To: "'K.BriffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk'" <K.BriffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
>Subject: advice on manuscript K08434
>Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 12:33:04 +0100
>
>Dear Keith,
>
> I am writing in the hope that you may be able to provide some advice
>on a manuscript submitted to Nature by Douglas Keenan, entitled "The
>300-year upheaval induced by the eruption of 2037 BC, and regional
>radiocarbon disparities".
>
>The first paragraph of the paper follows:
>
>"Several researchers have previously identified a climatic upheaval in
>tropical North Africa and south-western Asia that began just over 4000
>years ago and lasted for about three centuries. We argue here that the
>upheaval included Europe, the North Atlantic, and probably most of the
>world, that the principal climatic mechanism was an extremely high phase
>of the North Atlantic Oscillation, and that it was likely the largest
>climatic upheaval since the ice ages. The full scope of the upheaval has
>previously been missed in part because radiocarbon dates from some areas
>are centuries too early: palaeoclimatic events in different areas thus
>appeared asynchronous. The cause of the radiocarbon-dating disparities
>is identified as a regional deficiency in 14C, and we locate the
>region's source of 14C-deficient carbon. The upheaval as previously
>identified is known to have occurred shortly after a volcanic eruption.
>A companion paper proposes that the eruption was colossal and dates it
>to 2037 +/- 1 BC. Here we suggest how the eruption acted as a trigger
>for the upheaval"
>
> Is this a paper that you would be willing to review for us? If so,
>please let me know as soon as possible, and I will send it to you. To be
>honest, we are not completely sure that the paper is not somewhat
>fanciful, so if you felt that it did not deserve a detailed review, a
>short report describing the main areas of deficiency would be adequate.
>
> Many thanks in advance for whatever help you are able to give me, and
>I hope to hear from you soon.
>
>Best wishes,
>John VanDecar
>
>=-------------------------------------------------------------------=
> j.vandecaratXYZxyzure.com / +44 171-843-4545 / fax +44 171-843-4596
> Nature Nature
> 4 Crinan Street 968 National Press Building
> London N1 9XW England Washington, DC 20045-1938 USA
>=-------------------------------------------------------------------=
>
>

No comments:

Post a Comment