cc: Keith Briffa <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Michael E. Mann" <mannatXYZxyzginia.edu>, "Raymond S. Bradley" <rbradleyatXYZxyz.umass.edu>
date: Tue Jun 24 14:37:29 2003
from: Tim Osborn <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: Re: bradley comment
to: Tom Wigley <wigleyatXYZxyzr.edu>
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
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.
At 14:00 24/06/2003, you wrote:
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.