Friday, May 25, 2012

4734.txt

cc: mannatXYZxyzginia.edu
date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 08:25:24 -0500
from: "Michael E. Mann" <mannatXYZxyzginia.edu>
subject: Re: J. Climate reviews
to: Tim Osborn <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Scott Rutherford <srutherfordatXYZxyz.edu>, Bradley Raymond <rbradleyatXYZxyz.umass.edu>, Hughes Malcolm <mhughesatXYZxyzr.arizona.edu>, Jones Phil <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Briffa Keith <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>

Dear Tim,
Thanks for your very thoughtful comments.
I'm in full agreement w/ everything you say below, and had many of the same precise
thoughts as I've begun to work through this and make preliminary revisions before sending
on to Scott.
I agree that SB03 doesn't deserve mention at all, and upon greater thought, that we do
indeed need to discuss MM03 in proper context, and address the issues of purported errors
in the dataset (there are no real errors, w/ one or two potential minor exceptions, as
noted in your Climatic Change response). It will help *a lot* if the Clim. Chng paper is
provisionally accepted before we finalize the J. Climate paper. I'm tentatively operating
under this assumption, as I add some text on the issue. You as you say, Scott is already
performing an experiment where the MBH98 network is only used through 1971, so that
infilled proxy values (really, the only potentially legitimate complaint by MM03) are not
used at all. Also, Scott is doing a "late verification" experiment to address the concerns
of reviewer #1, and we're grudgingly going to calculate r^2 values for verification too
(although I think we all agree that this is a very limited metric of reconstructive
fidelity--but a concession to the reviewer, who is clearly trying to be helpful in his/her
comments)...
The Pauling et al paper is relevant where we discuss pseudoproxy experiments, etc. so I've
added that reference as well as a Gonzalez-Rouco et al reference, and a few other relevant
recently published refs (Jones et al JGR paper '03, Mann and Jones, GRL paper '03)...
I'm finding that lots and lots of text of redundant or largely irrelevant text can be
eliminated as we work through this, so we should be able to get it to an acceptable length
(I think we can move Figure 2 to a "supplementary information" format to help out w/ length
too).
Hope to have something to send on to Scott shortly, then we can send to you guys, and
everyone else can make comments, additional revisions, etc. I think we should be able to
turn this around pretty quickly
Thanks again for your quick response. More soon,
mike
At 11:34 AM 1/19/2004 +0000, Tim Osborn wrote:

Hi Scott and Mike,
thanks for forwarding the reviews - and thanks, Mike, for proposing that you and Scott
take the first stab at revising/responding. In the meantime, here are some (random)
comments:
(1) Do not cite S&B03. Justify this to the editor by citing the exchange in EOS -
especially the second EOF piece, which I believe is more damming to them than the first!
(2) For M&M03 it's a little harder, since their work relates directly to the MBH data
set used here, and because a response is not yet in the peer-reviewed literature. If
your response is accepted by Climatic Change before the Rutherford et al. paper is
revised, that will help. Yet, as I understand it, the point you make in your response
is not that the data "problems" pointed out by M&M03 are *all* incorrect/misleading
(though some/many may be), but that the NH temperature results are *unaffected* by them,
even if a few are indeed in error. If so, might we need to correct the few errors that
M&M03 did find, state that we have been done this in the paper, and then show the
revised RegEM results (presumably almost as they are now?). Please correct me if I'm
wrong about M&M03, or if the work/time involved in re-running RegEM with very slightly
revised multi-proxy input is prohibitive.
(3) As Mike says, the 2nd review still needs to be dealt with, despite being rather
unfocussed. I would say that (in response to the final paragraph of reviewer B) that a
detailed paper *is* necessary that dots the 'i's and crosses the 't's - not to
re-inforce the conventional wisdom but to demonstrate that the "conventional wisdom" is
relatively insensitive to methodological choices. By the way, the Pauling et al. paper
is from Andreas Pauling and others at Heinz Wanner's group rather than Hamburg. The
Pauling et al. paper does look at seasonality, but contributes little to the issue in my
opinion. Nevertheless, we might cite it anyway, as a concession to the reviewer - while
avoiding some of their other requests.
I'll probably send more comments after I've talked with Keith and Phil (Phil is away at
present).
Cheers
Tim
At 20:07 16/01/2004, Michael E. Mann wrote:

Dear All,
The first review is insightful and helpful, the 2nd review provides relatively little
insight. It promotes a number of myths, and plays gratuitous homage to the work of the
Hamburg group (a hint as to where the reviewer might be from!). However, where
reasonable points are raised by this reviewer, too they should be dealt with too.
I don't think the paper can be split up, but it can probably be shortened a bit. I
propose Scott and I take the first stab at revising and responding to reviewer comments,
and then send it on to the others. Scott and I had discussed plan to make the matlab
codes and data used available in a website mentioned in the paper, to avoid any possible
criticisms of availability. Is there any problem in posting the version of the MXD data
set used publiclly (Tim, Keith?), and any other thoughts on this?
Please feel free to send any comments, while Scott and I begin to work on the revised
version...
Thanks,
mike
I At 02:25 PM 1/16/2004 -0500, Scott Rutherford wrote:

Dear All,
Attached are the reviews from the Journal of Climate manuscript. One generally good, one
generally weird.
Scott
______________________________________________
Scott Rutherford
Assistant Professor
Dept. of Natural Sciences
Roger Williams University
e-mail: srutherfordatXYZxyz.edu
phone: (401) 254-3208
snail mail:
One Ferry Road
Bristol, RI 02809

______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mannatXYZxyzginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
[1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

Dr Timothy J Osborn
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail: t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk
phone: +44 1603 592089
fax: +44 1603 507784
web: [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm

______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mannatXYZxyzginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
[4]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

No comments:

Post a Comment