cc: "Keith Briffa" date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:25:28 -0500 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: RE: Fwd: RE: Wahl-Ammann paper on MBH-MM issues to: "Jonathan Overpeck" , "Eystein Jansen" Hello Jonathan: Top priority it is. We have been thinking on expanding things just a bit beyond what Steve Schneider is requiring at a minimum, but maybe that is not the best course of action at this point. Can you please advise of a deadline that we would have to hit to ensure that it can be cited. Depending on when this is, I could give you an estimate of whether we can have it to Steve Schneider with some time for his unprovisional approval. Hopefully so, but see below for (some) of the limits I'm afraid I'm facing... ...I.E., I'm teaching 12 credits now (the usual load here), so it is hard to get lots of uninterrupted time, and the University is very zealous about trimming very few corners here. Also I have had to deal with an emergency illness situation with my father recently. This (and finalizing a Science comment on the Von Storch et al. 2004 flawed criticism of the MBH work) explains why the finalizing on the Wahl-Ammann paper is not yet done. We will do everything fleshly possible to get the WA paper done ASAP. That is my promise. Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University ________________________________ From: Jonathan Overpeck [mailto:jto@u.arizona.edu] Sent: Mon 1/23/2006 3:47 PM To: Eystein Jansen Cc: Wahl, Eugene R; Keith Briffa Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: Wahl-Ammann paper on MBH-MM issues Hi all - I'm betting that "provisional acceptance" is not good enough for inclusion in the Second Order draft, but based on what Gene has said, he should have formal acceptance soon - we really need that. Can you give us a read on when you'll have it Gene? Best make this a top priority, or we'll have to leave your important work out of the chapter. Many thanks!! Peck Hi Peck, I assume a provisional acceptance is OK by IPCC rules? The timing of these matters are being followed closely by McIntyre (see: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=503) and we cannot afford to being caught doing anything that is not within the regulations. Thus need to consult with martin and Susan on this (see also last mail from Melinda). Cheers, Eystein Thanks Gene - it is worth all the effort, and please keep us (especially Keith) posted on the updates. best, peck X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Subject: RE: Wahl-Ammann paper on MBH-MM issues Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:17:03 -0500 Thread-Topic: Wahl-Ammann paper on MBH-MM issues Thread-Index: AcWBF2jTf69xJLFkThuHZzU6qK8tMx+kOAJUB28NG2A= From: "Wahl, Eugene R" To: "Jonathan Overpeck" Hello Jonathan and Keith: I'm not sure that I ever sent you the updated Wahl-Ammann paper that was the basis for Steve's provisional acceptance. Here it is. As is, it contains a long appendix (# 1) on issues with interannual statistics of merit for validation, which was not in the version I had sent you earlier in the year. All the main results and conclusions are the same. Caspar and I are also now responding to Steve's final requests, based on independent re-review. This is primarily to address publishing Pearson's r^2 and CE calculations for verification, which Steve and the reviewer reason should be done to get the conversation off the topic of us choosing not to report these measures, and onto the science itself. We explain thoroughly in the appendix I mention above why we feel these (and other interannual-only) measures of merit are not of much use for verification in the MBH context, so that the fact we are reporting them is contextualized appropriately. IN FACT, we will be going farther than that and will be bringing this material currently in an appendix into the main text, based on the reasoning belowS(quoted from another message) SCaspar mentioned yesterday that he talked with Susan Solomon about this paper, and she did not see the appendix we had added concerning the issues about Pearson's r^2 etc. Based on this she therefore thought our text was weak in this area in relation to McIntyre's criticisms. Caspar thought, and I agree, that we need to bring this stuff OUT of the appendix and get it INTO the methods section, so that it won't be so easily missed!! We are working on this--which will include other material as well in the text proper. Also, we are going ahead with an even further-expanded discussion on the issues with r^2, which itself will probably become an appendix in the final text (it had been slated for publication as supplemental web-site material). This expanded discussion will go into additional reasoning (with graphics) concerning the basis for r^2 not being useful in this context. It will give a vector space analysis of the issues, and explicit visual demonstration of how these issues with r^2 play out in terms of false negative and false positive errors in validation. Let me know if I can be of any further help in all this. Apologies if this message seems long. I did my best to keep it short, but I'm a bit tired and it is hard to edit well in that state! Peace, Gene ******************************* Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University 1 Saxon Drive Alfred NY, 14802 607.871.2604 ________________________________ From: Wahl, Eugene R Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 12:55 AM To: Jonathan Overpeck Cc: Keith Briffa; ammann@ucar.edu Subject: RE: Wahl-Ammann paper on MBH-MM issues Hello Jonathan: 1) I want you to know that we heard from Steve Schneider today that our paper with Climatic Change has been provisionally accepted for publication. The provisions Steve outlined are ones we fully accept and will implement (extra statistics of merit and remaking of graphics), so this paper can be viewed as accepted, I should think. Caspar and I are getting right on it. We wanted you to know this ASAP. 2) The Ammann-Wahl GRL comment on the MM GRL paper from early 2005 is being sent for final review along with a response by MM that GRL is soliciting. We had thought, based on info from James Famiglietti (editor), that this article had been accepted and the response from MM was just being sought. We did not realize that the entire package of comment and response would be put through a final review. We just heard about this last Friday. Sorry that we had that one mistaken. Hope you are well. Best wishes on IPCC work. Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University 607-871-2604 1 Saxon Drive Alfred, NY 14802 Content-Type: application/msword; name="Wahl_Ammann_3321_revised.doc" Content-Description: Wahl_Ammann_3321_revised.doc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Wahl_Ammann_3321_revised.doc" -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ Attachment converted: Nebbiolo:Wahl_Ammann_3321_revised.doc (WDBN/«IC») (009EB84C) -- ______________________________________________________________ Eystein Jansen Professor/Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen Allégaten 55 N-5007 Bergen NORWAY e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 Fax: +47-55-584330 -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/