date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:44:46 +0200 from: Eduardo Zorita subject: our manuscript in COP to: m.n.juckes@rl.ac.uk, hegerl@duke.edu, esper@wsl.ch, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, m.allen1@physics.ox.ac.uk, weber@knmi.nl, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Dear Martin and co-authors, I wanted just to inform you that our comment Zorita et al 2006 to the Mann et al 2005 paper in Journal of Climate has been now accepted. I attach the manuscript below. Essentially our manuscript tries to show that the MBH98 method is quite sensitive to the length of calibration period. Interestingly, this might be also related to a recent develpment regarding the RegEM method. Mann et al 20005 have identify an error in the RegEM code, which has been now withdrawn from the supplementary material page linked to this paper http://fox.rwu.edu/~rutherfo/supplements/Pseudoproxy05/ > UPDATE (AUG 16 2006): > 1. A line of the post-processing code (postprocessing.m) was inadvertently truncated when posted. Delete line16 and insert the following line in its place: > > [nyears,nvars]=size(X); gridsnonorm=X.*(repmat(sd(1:1312),nyears,1); > > 2. We have identified a problem in the version of the code provided here, which leads to a sensitivity of results to the time interval used to center and standardize the data. A corrected version of the code which eliminates this sensitivity will be available at this site in the near future. It is unclear to mea at this point what this means and what consequences it may have for the results shown in Mann et al 2005. best wishes eduardo Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\zorita_etal_comment_M05.pdf"