From: "Wahl, Eugene R" To: "Jonathan Overpeck" Subject: RE: Wahl Ritson Ammann Science article on vonStorch 04 Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:32:19 -0500 Cc: "Keith Briffa" , "Eystein Jansen" , "Caspar Ammann" Hello Jonathan, Keith, and Eystein: I don't yet have any word from Steve Schneider concerning the Wahl-Ammann article on the MBH/MM issues... ...HOWEVER, here is something that slipped under my radar screen, about which I should have made you aware previously. I've attached the ACCEPTED version of the Wahl-Ritson-Ammann comment article on the vonStorch et al. 2004 Science paper. This the article that criticizes MBH for very large low-frequency amplitude losses. The final acceptance from Science just came today, and is copied below. In this comment article (specifically requested to be expanded to 1000 words by the Science editors), we note that the calibration and verification performance of the MBH method as implemented in VS04 show really poor LF fidelity--which cannot happen if the MBH method is implemented according to its original form. We note this, which is explained by a significant omission on the part of VS04 in implementing the MBH methodology (a detrending step that was only disclosed later last year in a conference proceedings paper). We also comment on physical and statistical reasons why detrending is not appropriate in this context. We conclude that the large amplitude losses VS04 claims are simply not correct. I am imagining that this contextualization of the VS04 critique would also be relevant for your chapter, and it can now be considered "in press" as the from our Science correspondent notes below. I would think this acceptance makes it "citable". If not, I understand. NOTE THAT THIS ARTICLE IS SUBJECT TO THE USUAL SCIENCE EMBARGO RULES. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS MEANS CITATION IS EMBARGOED. (Cf. 4th paragraph in copied message below that supports citation.) Peace, Gene ******************************* Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University 607.871.2604 ********************** copied message below ******************** Dear Dr. Wahl, Below is the formal acceptance of your manuscript. The paper is technically not "in press" yet, though I assume that either "accepted" or "in press" would be acceptable. Dear Dr. Wahl, We are pleased to accept your revised Technical Comment on the paper by von Storch et al. for publication. The text of your comment will be edited to conform to *Science* style guidelines. Before publication you will receive galley proofs for author corrections. Please return the marked and corrected proofs, by fax or overnight express, within 48 hours of receipt. For authors with NIH grants intending to deposit the accepted version of their paper on PubMed Central, the following text must be displayed as a footnote with an asterisk to the manuscript title: "This manuscript has been accepted for publication in Science. This version has not undergone final editing. Please refer to the complete version of record at http://www.sciencemag.org/. This manuscript may not be reproduced or used in any manner that does not fall within the fair use provisions of the Copyright Act without the prior, written permission of AAAS." As noted in our License for Publication, the manuscript cannot be posted sooner than 6 months after final publication of the paper in Science. As you know, the full text of technical comments and responses appears on our website, Science Online, with abstracts published in the Letters section of the print *Science*. Thanks for your patience during this long process, and thanks for publishing in *Science*. Sincerely, Tara S. Marathe Associate Online Editor, Science tmarathe@aaas.org *********************** end copied message ******************