Saturday, June 2, 2012


date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:42:00 +0000
from: Tim Osborn <>
subject: Re: Fwd: 2005GL024674 Request to Review from Geophysical Research
to: Keith Briffa <>

Keith - I've been asked to separately review this. Obviously we
can't both agree to act as two separate reviewers. It's
probably/possibly SO&P-funded, which might be seen as a conflict,
though I'm sure we'd be as rigorous as ever! Though it sounds
interesting, I'd say no due to lack to time (I've got a different
manuscript to review at the moment).



At 10:40 01/11/2005, you wrote:
>do WE wish to do this?
>>X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 3.01 (F2.6; B2.11; Q2.03)
>>Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:49:34 UT
>>Subject: 2005GL024674 Request to Review from Geophysical Research Letters
>>X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.2
>>X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
>>X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
>>Dear Dr. Briffa:
>>Would you be willing and available to review "On the influence of
>>undetrended calibrations of proxy-based climate reconstructions of
>>the past centuries" by Eduardo Zorita, Fidel Gonzalez-Rouco, Hans
>>von Storch, submitted for possible publication in the Geophysical
>>Research Letters.
>>The manuscript's abstract is:
>> Statistical temperature reconstructions rely on the calibration
>>of proxy indicators against instrumental temperatures, usually
>>at interannual timescales. Calibrations may be accomplished with
>>detrended or non-detrended data.
>>Non-detrended calibration assumes that centennial trends in
>>the proxies can be completely ascribed to 20th century climate
>>change and that
>>relationship between temperature and proxy trends is the same at
>>interanual-decadal and centennial and longer timescales.
>>A test of the validity of these assumptions is proposed that can be
>>applied to all multiproxy methods. This test is illustrated in one
>>regression-based reconstruction of the Northern Hemisphere
>>temperature (NHT) of the last centuries, showing that both
>>assumptions are not fulfilled in this particular reconstruction.
>>The influence of non-climate trends in the proxies (centennial
>>noise) is explored analyzing pseudo-reconstructions in a
>>simulation of the last millennium with a general circulation
>>model. They are found to further contribute to the
>>underestimation of the reconstructed NHT variations.
>>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.
>>Rangasayi Halthore
>>Associate Editor
>>Geophysical Research Letters
>Professor Keith Briffa,
>Climatic Research Unit
>University of East Anglia
>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>Phone: +44-1603-593909
>Fax: +44-1603-507784

Dr Timothy J Osborn
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK

phone: +44 1603 592089
fax: +44 1603 507784


No comments:

Post a Comment