cc: Raimund Muscheler date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:12:02 +0200 from: Ian Snowball subject: Re: Holocene Forum article enquiry to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, J.A.Matthews@swansea.ac.uk, frank@maryoldfield.wanadoo.co.uk Dear John, Keith and Frank. I'll wait until I hear from John Matthews (or who ever has the power to make a decision) before I send any additional information, other than what follows below. Otherwise we will have started an E-mail circus that can get out of hand! I'm happy to send the second set of Geology reviews to the person who handles the review process. But, I must point out that Raimund Muscheler and I agree with 90% of the positive and negative comments made by the reviewers. Our second Geology submission compared a Phi reconstruction based on one relative palaeointensity curve to (i) our reconstruction based on the archaeomagnetic data set and (ii) the group sunspot number reconstruction by Solanki et al. (which also used the archaeomagnetic data set). Usoskin et al. (GRL) then published something that was similar to the revision we were working on, in which we use a geomagnetic field model to obtain another reconstruction (except that Usoskin et al. didn't properly consider the errors in geomagnetic field data and the model is not as good as most people are led to believe. That is another story). What we offer is a review of the long term solar activity reconstructions. We will objectively point out their differences and similarities and, most importantly, what features can't be explained by errors. It is VERY important to understand that any chronological offsets in geomagnetic field data and the 14C data will produce false changes in solar activity. This problem really hasn't been mentioned along with any of the published reconstructions! regards, Ian. At 11:10 AM 7/31/2006, Keith Briffa wrote: >Do not wish to jump the gun - but the subject is an important one and I >for one consider it to be just the sort subject we should be soliciting >papers on - I would be happy to handle the review process - which would >benefit from seeing the other reviews in detail if the authors are >prepared to show them. Then additional reviewers could be found to >supplement them. I can think of other review articles we could solicit >also - but this can wait >best wishes >Keith > >At 08:37 30/07/2006, Ian Snowball wrote: >>Dear John, >> >>I attach a letter in pdf format. The letter explains why Raimund >>Muscheler and I would like to write a Holocene Forum article about >>geomagnetic field uncertainties and their influence on solar activity >>reconstructions. >> >>I've "cc'd" this E-mail to Frank Oldfield and Keith Briffa. >> >>With best wishes, >> >>Ian. >> >>Ian Snowball (Docent/Associate Professor) >>GeoBiosphere Science Centre >>Department of Geology - Quaternary Sciences >>Lund University >>Sölvegatan 12 >>SE-223 62 Lund >>Sweden >>Tel. +46 (0) 46 222 3952 >>Fax. +46 (0) 46 222 4830 >>Mob. +46 (0) 70 676 3915 >> >> >> > >-- >Professor Keith Briffa, >Climatic Research Unit >University of East Anglia >Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. > >Phone: +44-1603-593909 >Fax: +44-1603-507784 > >http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/