date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:44:40 -0600 from: "Eugene.R.Wahl" subject: Re: Editors' comments on chapter outlines (Handbook of to: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk, David Frank Hi Keith and David: Sorry for the delay in responding. Quite a lot it going on, and I was out for a week teaching in Indiana (environmental ethics, which I do once per year to graduate students -- fun but demanding as I teach a half-term in 5-6 days). Keith, thanks. You are gracious in the note below, and we weren't daunted by your responses. They are helpful, and know we are considering them carefully in our writing. Sorry I don't have more time right now, but know that we are writing away. Hi David: Sorry to you also re: no communication for over a week. I'm pushing along with all dispatch I can create. I'll get in touch just after this with some more specific replies to your last message. Thanks to you both. Peace, Gene [1]K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk wrote: Thanks Gene and Frank sorry about the rambling style and lack of proof reading in my message - was just rushing to send before leaving work. On re-reading it myself, it sounds too dictatorial - I would not presume to tell you what to write - sorry if it came over like that . My intention was to try to be helpful but I sound rudely prescriptive! Honestly this was not meant - I really look forward to reading your text cheers Keith > Thanks a lot Keith, in particular for the detail. We will make good use of this direction. David and I are already talking about it. Peace, Gene Keith Briffa wrote: Eugene and Dave sorry not to get back to you before (but this was my really heavy teaching period - now running down). In fact generally what you intend is fine though perhaps with a bit more focus on philosophy rather than mechanics. Let me try to explain - First let me say that the I agree with John about not using the Appendix route. So your plan as outlined as 3 sections is ok. The brief illusion to specific proxies and cross-referencing is the way to go but "good" examples of various types is very acceptable. Let me say though that we do not need too much "standard" stuff on trees that can be found elsewhere - just appropriate focus on issues and signposts to literature - but rather a discussion of concepts that show potential and current difficulties of high-resolution data (including specifically intra-annual as well as inter-annual) as distinct from other types of (less-resolved) proxies. Major stress on the ubiquitous use of empirical interpretation of climate controls of proxies (and inferred assumption of the stability of uniformitarianism underlying these regression approaches) would is important (as is lack of true process understanding to date in many studies - or at least demonstrable evidence in consistency of such with regression-based results in existing studies). Also we need discussion of how current methods emphasise climate variability, potentially loosing or attenuating evidence of (multi-century) climate change. Yes you could discuss how the precision enables hypothesis testing about very -short time scale forcings and responses and the definition of precisely delineated patterns of reconstructed change in space also - because of the facility to average accurately , while less resolved data , calibrated with spatial regression - possibly over state the latter evidence or at least produce reconstructions with such wide confidence bands that they effectively tell us nothing useful about medium time scales of change , say centuries. However, this begs the question of the Hockey-Stick debate (the Von Storch , Burger stuff) and the limited basis (in terms of proxies and coverage) that it provides (because of the need to respect resolution and climate sensitivity issues). Don't be afraid to attack this issue head on. I like your section 3 by the sound of it . In practise, it will be hard to judge the appropriate level of detail needed for specific proxy types - so think in concepts with examples rather than the rigid proxy type approach (such as was used in our recent Holocene review) - and if in doubt , do less now and leave it to the authors to juggle the balance between chapters later. Your focus though on the dendro will , however , be in this chapter only. Basically , what you are doing is fine , but think what you believe limits our understanding of current proxies and what we need to do and remember that the future ideals are what you are trying to identify and , so facilitate. I know this sounds a lot like what we tried to do in that review paper - and perhaps it is - but it gives you the chance to put your stamp on the debate. Good luck and thanks for taking this on Keith At 17:02 06/03/2009, Eugene Wahl wrote: OK, I will await guidance from you on settling this question. Inclusion of the material on dendro methods in the main text would take us back to the original 3 main sections, just with section 2 on Methods focused largely on dendro -- with the various other high-resolution methods briefly mentioned and then referenced to the other relevant chapters on them for more detail. This structure is fine with me. By the way, please include David Frank, my co-author, on this correspondence as it develops. Thanks very much. Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Physical Scientist NOAA/NESDIS/NCDC/Paleoclimate Branch Keith Briffa wrote: Have been very busy with teaching will send comments next week Keith At 10:04 06/03/2009, Matthews J.A. wrote: Dear Eugene OK, but I would prefer the `tree-ring proxy' material to be integrated into the chapter (rather than an add-on appendix). Perhaps this could be achieved by describing section 2 as a case study of the most important proxy. I am very disappointed th\at Keith Briffa has failed to send me any editorial comments on any chapter - I know he expressed particular interest in your chapter (perhaps this will prompt some comments). John John A. Matthews Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography Editor of The Holocene Department of Geography School of the Environment and Society University of Wales Swansea SWANSEA SA2 8PP Home phone/fax: +44 1633 413 291 Office phone: +44 1792 295563 Office fax: +44 1792 295955 E-mail: [2][3]J.A.Matthews@Swansea.ac.uk ---------- From: Eugene Wahl [[4]mailto:Eugene.R.Wahl@noaa.gov] Sent: Fri 3/6/2009 1:09 AM To: Matthews J.A.; David Frank Subject: Re: Editors' comments on chapter outlines (Handbook of Environmental change) Hello Dr. Matthews: I have looked over the outline of the chapter I am co-authoring with David Frank (c. 15), and note that the one editor's comment suggests a significant abbreviating of the description of proxy methods that is set forth in section 2 of the outline. I think this is a valuable suggestion, and based on it, I want to suggest that David and I implement it with one important change. The change would be this: we would mention the various methods in an introduction and reference the other relevant chapters on them for more detail, with the exception of dendrochronological data, which we would describe in some detail in a "Tree-Ring Proxy Methods" section that would act as a kind of appendix to the chapter. Please let us know what you think of this alteration. The outline as set forth in sections 1 and 3 would otherwise remain unchanged, except that the former "section 3" would now constitute the actual section 2 -- with what had been the second section before becoming the ending methods section described above. Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Physical Scientist NOAA/NESDIS/NCDC/Paleoclimate Branch 325 Broadway Street Boulder, CO 80305 PHONE: 303-497-6297 FAX: 303-497-6513 [5][6]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html