When you notice an email discussing a review, could you jot down the email number, date, the reviewer, the reviewee. Please don’t editorialize, just note it for reference.
-
Tip Jar
(The Tip Jar is working again, via a temporary location) -
Pages
-
Categories
-
Articles
-
Blogroll
- Accuweather Blogs
- Andrew Revkin
- Anthony Watts
- Bishop Hill
- Bob Tisdale
- Dan Hughes
- David Stockwell
- Icecap
- Idsos
- James Annan
- Jeff Id
- Josh Halpern
- Judith Curry
- Keith Kloor
- Klimazweibel
- Lubos Motl
- Lucia's Blackboard
- Matt Briggs
- NASA GISS
- Nature Blogs
- RealClimate
- Roger Pielke Jr
- Roger Pielke Sr
- Roman M
- Science of Doom
- Tamino
- Warwick Hughes
- Watts Up With That
- William Connolley
- WordPress.com
- World Climate Report
-
Favorite posts
-
Links
-
Weblogs and resources
-
Archives
114 Comments
Thursday July 10th. Email #1831. Ben Santer discusses reviews of counter-paper to Douglass etal 2007.
#4743
#4743. 28-Sep-09. Mann + Grant Foster + Trenberth. Comment on McLean 2009.
Do you also want review comments themselves? Here are a couple. I also suggest including the paper name to improve search results.
0140.txt: 19 Oct 2004. Anonymous review comments from GRL. Tom Wigley – Extended Scenarios for Glacier Melt due to Anthropogenic Forcing
0900.txt: 28 May 2009. Overpeck? comments from Science. Darrell Kaufman – Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling
File 0174.txt:
Dec 4, 2007, Mann to Jones
Dec 5, 2007, Jones to Mann
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=4922 Discussed by Pielke Jr http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/11/foia2011-on-shameful-paper.html
snip – not journal review
0240.txt
January 28, 2008
Jones to Gene Wahl:
0294.txt
Jones to sundry:
164 Edward Cook 2007
[6] ” Hi Tom and Keith,”” Here is my review of your \”signal-free\” paper just sent in to the journal and Connie Woodhouse who handled your paper.
4256.txt: 30 Mar 2009. P Jones review for GRL. Judith Lean and David Rind – How Will Earth’s Surface Temperature Change in Future Decades
4261.txt: 2 Sep 2003. K Briffa review for GRL. Jan Esper, Fritz Schweingruber – Large-scale warming triggers Siberian treeline advances
4602.txt: 15 May 2008. K Briffa review for GRL. LIU YU et al – Annual temperatures during 2.5 millennia in the Eastern Tibetan Plateau inferred from Tree rings
Apologies if any have already been listed above…
883.txt
1425.txt
1871.txt
1973.txt
2143.txt
2397.txt
2856.txt
3240.txt
3731.txt
4152.txt
5321.txt
Steve: do you mind adding date and who was involved?
Like so
https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?dsrcid=2250304
Thanks, just mailed a question to you.
Coming right up…
Use a google fusion table and people can just add to it online
http://www.google.com/fusiontables/Home/
Cross posted, sorry – and thanks for the link Mosh – will see if I can move the info into one and then Steve can bulldoze the updated post I just did (it’s in moderation because of email links from the headers…)
See the table I started for you
Tried to make it somewhat readable, hope I didn’t miss any html tags…
0883.txt
Thu Jan 3 10:15:12 2008
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: French stuff (+ 3 PDFs)
to: Edouard BARD
“Over Christmas I got these two emails from EPSL about 2 papers I reviewed and rejected. I’ll forward just for you. I’m reviewer # 1, but there is an interesting note linking the editor to Courtillot.”
1425.txt
date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 16:19:49 +0100
from: Phil Jones
subject: Fwd: rural/urban paper
to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk,k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,simon.tett@metoffice.com, peter.thorne@metoffice.com,chris.folland@metoffice.com, david.parker@metoffice.com
“I reviewed Peterson’s one with Chris and couldn’t see anything wrong
with the main message.”
1871.txt
date: Fri Feb 15 12:16:35 2008
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: Additional calculations
to: santer1@llnl.gov
” I’m attaching a paper I reviewed (Tom Smith/Dick Reynolds et al) of their new version that has been accepted by J. Climate. ”
1973.txt
date: Fri Jul 8 09:43:03 2005
from: Phil Jones
subject: Alexander et al. (2005) pdf
to: Kevin Trenberth
“Have had a relook at the figures – I reviewed this for JGR.”
2143.txt
date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:02:34 -0400
from: Thomas C Peterson
subject: Re: the next controversy
to: Phil Jones
“I was just asked to review a J. Climate paper on Chinese UHI. I declined (I reviewed a GRL pan evap article last week and have a J. Climate radiosonde homogeneity paper to review, hopefully, this week). I’ll paste the abstract they sent below just FYI as it relates to your UHI controversy. I recommended Li as a reviewer…”
2397.txt
date: Tue, 13 May 2008 09:55:39 -0400
from: David Easterling
subject: JGR paper etc.
to: Phil Jones
“Just letting you know I reviewed the paper Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature trends, with an emphasis on China excellent paper.”
2856.txt
date: Wed Oct 28 09:34:09 2009
from: Phil Jones
subject: RE: Review paper on temperature inhomogenities – looking for
to: Blair Trewin
“Attached is one other paper that will come out in Feb 2010 in Weather. Don’t pass this. … Had to review this poor paper. Also another paper on Chinese temps. Spent some time rewriting this one as you might guess!”
3240.txt
cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,Phil Jones
date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:41:23 +0000
from: Tim Osborn
subject: Re: Moberg et al.
to: “Michael E. Mann”
“In confidence, I can tell you that I reviewed a very similar paper by the
same authors that was submitted to Science last year, and recommended
rejection…”
3731.txt
date: Tue Jan 27 09:36:31 2004
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: 2004GL019493
to: Saburo Miyahara
“I’ve just submitted the review. As you will see I did not think too much of it.”
4152.txt
cc: gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov
date: Tue Jan 15 13:17:19 2008
from: Phil Jones
subject: Differences in our series (GISS/HadCRUT3)
to: James Hansen
“I reviewed a paper from NCDC (Tom Smith et al) about issues with recent SSTs and the greater number of buoy type data since the late-90s (now about 70%) cf ships.”
5321.txt
cc: Tom Wigley , “Michael E. Mann” , Mike Hulme
date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:40:57 -0700
from: Ben Santer
subject: More on Climate Research…..
to: Phil Jones , rls@email.unc.edu
“Over a year ago, Tom and I reviewed (for JGR) a paper by Douglass et al. that was virtually identical to the version that has now appeared in Climate Research. We rejected it.”
Regarding #2397 above. Jones was an author, with Qingxiang Li on the paper “Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature trends, with an emphasis on China”.
1090.txt
date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:33:28 +0800
from:
subject: Re: Re: Re: Fwd: 2008JD009916 (Editor – Yinon Rudich):
to: “Phil Jones”
“Dear Dr. Jones:
On February 5, 2008, I received your manuscript entitled
“Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature trends, with an
emphasis on China” by authors Phil Jones,
David Lister, and Qingxiang Li.
Yinon Rudich
Editor, JGR-Atmospheres”
Published
Ren is suspected as being the other reviewer for the “Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature trends, with an
emphasis on China” paper.
0896.txt
cc: d.lister@uea.ac.uk
date: Mon Apr 14 13:53:36 2008
from: Phil Jones
subject: Revised paper
to:
“By the way I think that the two reviewers were Ren and Dave Easterling. Only Dave Easterling would know what was said in his 1996 paper and also only Ren (or one of the co-authors) would know what was in Ren et al (in press when the review was done) in J. Climate.”
snip – not a journal review
0262.txt
…
snip – not a journal review
3056 Milliman
#0824 is fully enclosed in #3056
snip – not a journal review
Email 3500 – not sure if this is exactly the sort of thing you are getting at but it looks close enough, as the team discuss their response to McLean, deFreitas and Carter in 2009.
This is a chain of emails from 5 August 2009 with the subject “ENSO blamed over warming – paper in JGR”.
Grant “Tamino” Foster emails other team members saying that he has “completed most of the submission to JGR, but there are three required entries” he needs help with, including suggesting reviewers.
The journal’s requirement was to “list the names of 5 experts who are knowledgeable in your area and could give an [b]unbiased[/b] review of your work. [b]Please do not list colleagues who are close associates, collaborators[/b], or family members.”
A few names are kicked around by Foster, Jones and Trenberth. Jones summarises the suggestions by saying:
[b]”All of them know the sorts of things to say – about our comment and the awful original, without any prompting.”[/b]
4191 Loehle paper on Divergence for Climatic Change sent to Briffa to review, he declines due to conflict of interest.
#1615
…Thank you for your time and effort! Sincerely, Mark New Editor Geophysical Research
Jones reviewing Scafetta and West
“What is totally unreasonable about your use of these series is to patch the instrumental
record from 1850 onwards on the end. You need to show the Mann and Moberg series through to
their ends then add the instrumental data to the plot for comparison (after whatever
smoothing you’ve applied)”
2986 Jan 2005 — Mann to Chris Reason (editor at GRL)
Trying to “re-define” peer review:
” > A number of colleagues of mind have informed me of an inflammatory and
> deeply flawed paper that has apparently been accepted in GRL by two
> individuals McIntyre and McKitrick. The paper is full of false claims
> that were already rejected by Nature in a comment that these authors had
> submitted on the previous work of my co-authors and me.
>
> The authors have apparently been distributing this paper to various
> individuals, including colleagues of mine. Obviously, neither my
> co-authors nor I were granted any opportunity to respond to the unfounded
> criticisms in this paper. But it is furthermore my understanding that
> none of my scientific colleagues in this research area (that is
> high-resolution paleoclimate reconstruction–this would include
> researchers at CRU, Univ. of Arizona, Lamont Doherty, Duke University,
> University of Bern) had any role in the review of this paper. This is
> especially disturbing.
>
> I am very concerned that this paper has been accepted by GRL. It is one
> in a number of deeply flawed papers that have been accepted in the
> journal recently (several papers by Douglass et al, one by Soon et al,
> and now this one), and a number of my other colleagues, such as Tom
> Wigley, are very concerned about this as well.
>
> I have tried to contact the chief editor Stephen Mackwell to discuss
> this matter, but have been unable to reach him. I was hoping you might be
> able to provide some help or information on this matter.”
5332.txt, 31 Mar 2008, Ed Cook reviewing Schofield and Barker.
From 5188
“J. Atmos. Solar-Terrestr. Phys.”
subject: ATP1392R1, Invitation to review
to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk
Dear Dr. Jones,
The manuscript Solar radiation, sea surface temperature and global warming by Prof. Antonino Palumbo has been submitted (or re-submitted) for publication, and given your knowledge of this subject I feel I would like to request your review….
This paper looks to be available here:
http://eprints.bice.rm.cnr.it/263/
This appears to be Mann’s review of Jones, Briffa and Osborn JGR, 2003. Changes in the Northern Hemisphere annual cycle – implications for paleoclimatology? Submitted on 2003-04-17.
4132. 2003-04-28
______________________________________________________
date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:46:11 +0100
from: Phil Jones
subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: RE: Rog Outline
to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
Somewhere in this message is Mike’s review of the seasonal cycle paper.
Phil
X-Sender: mem6u@multiproxy.evsc.virginia.edu
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 09:02:43 -0400
To: Phil Jones
From: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: Rog Outline
Cc: mann@virginia.edu
HI Phil,
…
Review on the JGR paper appended below. As you might imagine, my main sensitivity was w/ conclusions about implications for e.g. Mann et al which I didn’t think necessarily
followed from this analysis. The revisions requested are mostly changes in wording, and it should be straightforward to address them in a final version…
mike
Comments:
General Comments:
This is an interesting manuscript, raising some important issues regarding seasonality of past temperature trends that are interesting in there own right, and may have potential implications for certain paleoclimate reconstructions. These issues are worthy
of discussion in the literature, and JGR is an appropriate venue. The authors, as is typical, have done a careful job with their analysis, and it appears sound, as do the
primary conclusions, although I have some specific reservations. The primary criticism
is that the authors imply a greater generality to their conclusions than can actually be
justified, given the limitations of the available data series. There are a number of
important caveats that need to be invoked in the interpretation of the results, and the
limitations in drawing large-scale conclusions from the limited data need to be
acknowledged up front. There are a number of underlying issues regarding the nature of
the seasonal and spatial details of past climate change (in particular, forced climate
change) which likely impact the interpretation of the results, which are not given
adequate discussion in the manuscript at present. Given the space available in a JGR
paper (vs. e.g. a GRL article), there is no excuse for not providing more detailed
discussion where appropriate. I provide several specific comments below along these
lines which should be addressed in a revised version of the manuscript.
Specific Comments
1) Abstract–the generality of the conclusions are overstated in the abstract. The
evidence is only from Europe and China (i.e, only the fringes of the Eurasian continent
alone) but the wording argues that implications apply to other regions. It isn’t even
clear that the conclusions apply to the interior of the Eurasian continent, let alone
any of North America (see comments below). It is a leap of faith, then, to assume that
the results generalize to extratropical hemispheric (let alone, full hemispheric)
trends, and the authors need to be more cautious in drawing general conclusions.
2) Introduction, first sentence: There is a potential “straw man” argument being
introduced here. Precisely which “annual temperature” reconstructions are being referred
to here? The statement made could arguably apply to Crowley and Lowery (2000), which is
based on scaling a composite of largely extratropical (and mostly summer-sensitive)
proxy records against the annual mean Northern Hemisphere mean instrumental series. It
is far more difficult, however, to argue that the authors’ statements fairly
characterize the Mann et al (1998;1999) annual mean temperature reconstruction. In the
latter case, half of the area of the hemispheric mean surface temperature reconstruction
comes from tropical latitudes (i.e., latitudes below 30N), and the proxy indicators
primarily used to calibrate the tropical annual-mean patterns of variance are almost
certainly not boreal warm-season in nature (for the example, the ENSO-scale patterns of
tropical SST variance in the reconstruction are calibrated, in large part, by a
combination of cold-season drought sensitive tree-ring data from Mexico, tropical
tree-ring data, and tropical corals and ice cores–none of which could be argued to
exhibit a boreal warm-season sensitivity bias!). The authors arguments cannot be argued
to apply to these reconstructions (as seems to be implied by later comments–see below).
3) Discussion of Figures 1 and 2 on pages 5-6: the authors should compare a single
long-term composite series based on averaging the various (potentially, standardized)
station JJA-DJF series with that which is available for the full NH back through the mid
19th century. The point here is to see how well they compare in terms of the general
trends during the interval (back through the mid 19th century) of overlap–in fact,
based on inspection of e.g. Figure 1, I don’t think that there will be much similarity,
and, if that is the case, then it demands extreme caution in generalizing about the true
large-scale or hemispheric nature of inferred trends in summer-winter temperature
differences based on the sparse long series available to the authors.
4) Related to point #3 above, recent studies (see e.g. the discussion in the Mann, 2002
piece which is in the reference list but not actually cited in the text, and also the
results of Shindell et al, 2003) have shown that large seasonal differences in
temperature trends are expected in past centuries because of the seasonally-specific
response, in particular, to volcanic forcing (see Kirchner et al, 1999). The largest
seasonal differences are likely to occur in the continental centers, where volcanic
forcing tends to impart a large summer cooling but also typically a sizeable
dynamically-induced warming (related to the response of the Northern Annual Mode, or
‘AO’ or ‘NAO’ to volcanic stratospheric aerosol forcing) in the following winter The
large differences, however, are observed over the continental centers, and in fringe
regions such as Europe or China, the response may not even be of the same sign as the
continental mean response, which is dominated by the behavior of the continental
centers. Thus, any spatial network (proxy or instrumental) which exhibits a bias with
respect to the sampling of the continents is likely to exhibit a bias in terms of the
estimate of summer-winter temperature differences (Mann, 2002). Since the authors
instrumental network only samples the fringes of the Eurasian continent, it is very
unlikely to capture the true winter-summer difference in Eurasian continental mean
temperature, let alone Northern Hemisphere extratropical continental (Eurasia and North
America) temperature, let alone Northern Hemisphere extratropical mean (land and ocean)
temperature, let alone true Northern Hemisphere (tropical and extratropical, land and
ocean) temperature! Once again, this calls for caveats in the interpretation of the
present results with regard to hemisphere-scale implications.
5) Related to the above, why don’t the authors show, in Figure 1, the results for some
of the long available North American series (which includes several long east coast
series, but also a series in Minnesota back to the early 19th century) to establish the
similarity of the longer-term summer-winter trends in the two continents (this too
should be included in the composite discussed in point #3 above).
6) End of first paragraph on page 6, the authors might note that certain modeling
studies (Shindell et al, 2003) have indeed already looked at potential
seasonally-distinct temperature changes in past centuries, that are associated with the
seasonally-distinct signature of the response to known natural climate forcings.
7) Figure 3 indicates a relationship that holds during the latter 20th century,
presumably somewhat specific to the mix of internal and forced variability that
dominates over that period. This may not be representative of the situation in earlier
centuries, where the primary pattern of forced variability is by volcanic and solar
forcing which impart distinct regional and seasonal signatures in the temperature field
(see Shindell et al, 2001;2003) that are likely to be quite different from those
associated with anthropogenic forcing (GHG and aerosol) which dominate during the
interval examined by the authors. Related to this, have the series been detrended before
calculating the correlations shown in Figure 3? This has a bearing on the
interpretation.
8) 3rd paragraph on page 7, the discussion of previous work (e.g. Mann et al, 1998;1999)
here is misleading for the reasons spelled out in point #2 above. The arguments
assuming a warm-season sensitivity bias do not apply to the full hemispheric
reconstruction but, at most, the extratropical component of the reconstruction. The
statement (2 sentences up from bottom of paragraph) “Their implicit assumption that the
relative trends…” is not a fair statement in reference to the Mann et al multiproxy
reconstructions, and the discussion needs to be revised here. An analysis (Rutherford et
al, to be submitted) shows, using a common statistical method, but distinct data sets,
that the multiproxy network of Mann et al calibrates and cross-validates cold-season
variability more skillfully than the tree-ring maximum latewood density (‘MXD’) density
network of Briffa and coworkers, while the Briffa et al MXD network, in turn, calibrates
warm-season variance more skillfully than the multiproxy network. In short, the
conclusions drawn here don’t apply to reconstructions of tropical surface temperature
variability, nor to multiproxy data used to reconstruct that variability, so the
implications of the authors results for multiproxy reconstructions of full Northern
Hemisphere annual mean temperature are not clear. The authors need to downplay their
conclusions in this regard.
9) The authors and this reviewer are in common agreement that seasonally-specific
biases are likely to be present in most climate proxy data, and that these biases need
to closely considered in the process of climate reconstruction. This is a fair point,
and one worth emphasizing in the conclusions But the specific conclusions of the authors
in this study regarding summer-winter differences based on the series analyzed do not
clearly generalize to other proxy-based surface temperature reconstructions
(particularly multiproxy reconstructions with an equal tropical and extratropical
emphasis) for the reasons spelled out above, and this point, in fairness, should be
made.
REFERENCES:
Kirchner, I., G.L. Stenchikov, H.-F. Graf, A. Robock, and J.C. Antuna, Climate model
simulation of winter warming and summer cooling following the 1991 Mount Pinatubo
volcanic eruption, Journal of Geophysical Research, 104 (D16), 19039-19055, 1999.
Shindell, D.T., Schmidt, G.A., Mann, M.E., Rind, D., Waple, A., Solar forcing of
regional climate change during the Maunder Minimum, Science, 294, 2149-2152, 2001.
Shindell, D.T., Schmidt, G.A., Miller, R., Mann, M.E., Volcanic and Solar forcing of
“Little Ice Age” Surface Temperature Changes, Journal of Climate, in press, 2003.
0050
2003 11:03
from: Eric Steig
subject: review of Holocne paper by Masson-Delmotte et al.
To briffa
0091
date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007
from: “Michael E. Mann”
subject: Re: Fwd: RE: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
to: Phil Jones
snip – please focus on JOURNAL reviews.
sorry…forgot cc: Gavin Schmidt
date: Thu May 22 09:28:52 2008
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: Thompson et al paper
to: mann@psu.edu
And PJ said “Yes”.
Glenn McGregor Chief Editor of the International Journal of Climatology and Phil Jones paper
1524.txt
Referee 1
“…I recommend to reject this manuscript, it is well below the standard acceptable in IJC or any other refereed journals. The manuscript did not contribute to the area of research, and the methodology used for comparison is naiveEand unaccepted in scientific publications…”
McGregor
“…In view of the comments of the referee(s) your manuscript has been denied publication in the International Journal of Climatology….”
Jones
“…I’m afraid these two reviews will definitely discourage me from submitting more papers to IJC! The two reviewers have not realized the novelty of this paper…You can ignore this email if you want. I won’t be submitting this paper to IJC again…”
2288.txt
McGregor
“…As I am not able to read every paper in detail I have to resort to taking a decision based on the reviews. In this case both were rather negative, hence my decision. Based on your response what I would like to do, with your permission, is to send the paper to a 3rd reviewer and request an opinion within 3 weeks…”
Jones
“…Can I make one suggestion? Good if the reviewer were a Brit – then they’s know something about the context. Possibilities would be Rob Wilby and Nigel Arnell…”
McGregor
“…Phil Thanks for the useful suggestion…”
2452.txt
McGregor:
“…I managed to get a third reviewer to look at the comments on your WG paper. Have pasted these below. I will rescind the decision of “reject” and change it to major revisions. Hope you are satisfied with this…”
“3rd Reviewer’s Comments
“…I think both of these reviews are very reasonable and not overly harsh, especially the lengthy and measured remarks from Reviewer 2. My major criticisms have all been noted by one or both of the reviewers:…”
re 2452.txt
The paper did subsequently appear in the online journal “Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics”.
0139.txt Jones to Santer
“Also just sent back comments to Mike Mann on the paper by Tom and
you factoring out ENSO and Volcanoes. Felt like writing red ink all over
it, but sent back a short publish suject to minor revision to Mike. This
is the first time I’ve ever reviewed one of Tom’s or your papers !
Copy of what I sent is attached. I forgot to sign it before sending it !
“
#0160 between Briffa and Wahl
July 21-23 2006
Wahl Ammann
Topic is about text Briffa wants to use as comments – looks like responses to the IPCC review comments.
At the bottom is this:
> >”The idea of frequency dependent
> >skill/non-skill is not new to the literature, and the independent
> >re-reviewer that Steve Schneider had look over Wahl-Ammann said s/he
> >had experienced this issue in his/her work.”
1741
from: “Michael E. Mann”
subject: Re: Fwd: Re: clarification re Mann / McKitrick andMcIntyre
to: Tim Osborn , Michael Oppenheimer , Tim Osborn , Phil Jones , Keith Briffa , , , Tom Wigley , tom crowley , Gabi Hegerl , Jonathan Overpeck , REDACTED
Dear All,
We have an official response to be submitted shortly for peer-review. We will send the
response to all of you for your comments, whether or not you get it for review.
A series of emails from Neil Roberts at Quaternary Science Reviews to Keith Briffa regarding reviews for paper titled “Imprints of Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and twentieth century warmth in proxy-based temperature reconstruction at high-latitudes of Europe”
#4696 regards review of the second submittal after a recommendation for rejection by Briffa and Melvin over the flawed use of the RCS method. Paper does not look to have been published.
#1416
date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 11:30:01 +0100
from: “Quaternary Science Reviews”
subject: Reviewer Invitation for JQSR-D-06-00173
to:
#2000
date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:07:24 +0000
from: Keith Briffa
subject: Fwd: Second Reminder of Late Review for JQSR-D-06-00173
to: t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk
#4063
date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 13:34:09 +0000
from: Keith Briffa
subject: Fwd: Re: Reminder of Late Review for JQSR-D-06-00173
to: t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk
#3942
date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:05:07 +0100
from: “Quaternary Science Reviews”
subject: Reviewer Notification of Editor Decision
to:
#4696
date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 00:24:54 +0100
from: “Quaternary Science Reviews”
subject: Reviewer Invitation for JQSR-D-07-00060
to:
Interesting Note: #2000, #4063 are just forwards to Melvin of an email from Roberts to Briffa. The source emails from Roberts to Briffa are absent.
4882, Phil Jones was a reviewer for Wall & Ammann Dec 2005.
#0463 To Phil Jones as a reviewer.
date: 26 Oct 2009 10:19:58 +0000
from: “J. Atmos. Solar-Terrestr. Phys.”
subject: Reviewer Notification of Editor Decision
to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk
Title: Distinguishing Paleoclimate Reconstructions from Instrumental Series
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Rejection notice.
Tere is a review at the bottom from reviewer number 1.
#2699 and #2180 to Phil Jones as a reviewer
Title: Evidence for Solar Forcing in Variability of Pressures and Temperatures in Europe
Journal: Earth and Planetary Science Letters
Authors: Elena Blanter; Jean-Louis Le Mouël; Mikhail Shnirman;
Vincent Emmanuel Courtillot
#2699
date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 08:55:30 -0400
from: epsl
subject: Re: Reviewer Invitation for EPSL-D-07-00839
to: Phil Jones
Phil Jones comments on paper.
#2180
date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 03:23:59 -0000
from: “Earth and Planetary Science Letters”
subject: Reviewer Notification of Editor Decision
to:
Rejected
Reviewer 1 Comments included.
#3793 is the reviewer request for the above paper
“Evidence for Solar Forcing in Variability of Pressures and Temperatures in Europe”
date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 02:52:17 -0000
from: hilst-epsl@mit.edu
subject: Reviewer Invitation for EPSL-D-07-00142
to:
0275: Dec 12, 2007 – Mar 5, 2008
0054: May 5+6, 2008
4235: Jan 10+11, 2008
0455: Jan 11, 2008
4316: Jan 11, 2008
5097: Jan 11, 2008
4828: Jun 4, 2008
1831: Jul 9+10, 2008
Referee 1: Francis Zwiers
Referee 2: unknown
Reviewing Santer et al 2008 (responding to Douglas et al 2007)
4235:
Osborne to Santer and Jones:
“…I’m on the editorial board of IJC. Phil is right that it can be rather slow (though faster than certain other climate journals!). Nevertheless, IJC really is the preferred place to publish (though a downside is that Douglass et al. may have the opportunity to have a response considered to accompany any comment).
I just contacted the editor, Glenn McGregor, to see what he can do. He promises to do everything he can to achieve a quick turn-around time (he didn’t quantify this) and he will also “ask (the publishers) for priority in terms of getting the paper online asap after the authors have received proofs”. He genuinely seems
keen to correct the scientific record as quickly as possible. He also said (and please treat this in confidence, which is why I emailed to you and Phil only) that he may be able to hold back the hardcopy (i.e. the print/paper version) appearance of Douglass et al., possibly so that any accepted Santer et al. comment could appear alongside it. Presumably depends on speed of the review process…”
0455
Santer:
“…The editor of IJoC, Glenn McGregor, has agreed to treat our paper as an independent submission rather than as a comment on Douglass et al. This avoids the situation that I was afraid of – that our paper would be
viewed as a comment, and Douglass et al. would have the “last word” in this exchange…”
0455:
cc: Dian Seidel , Tom Wigley , Karl Taylor , Thomas R Karl , John Lanzante , Carl Mears , “David C. Bader” , “‘Francis W. Zwiers'” , Frank Wentz , Leopold Haimberger , Melissa Free , “Michael C. MacCracken” , Phil Jones , Steve Sherwood , Steve Klein , ‘Susan Solomon’ , Tim Osborn , Gavin Schmidt , “Hack, James J.”
date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:38:40 -0800
from: Ben Santer
subject: IJoC and Figure 4
to: Peter Thorne
Francis Zwiers will later be Referee 1 (!)
4316
From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 11:25 AM
To: Glenn McGregor
Subject: RE: Update on response to Douglass et al.
Regarding reviewers, I could certainly help out by finding some willing and available… Francis Zwiers might be willing to look at it, and I there are various other people quite independent from either Santer or Douglass.
1819.txt
Not sure if this fits the bill, but discussion of review of code and data for MBH98 where an “independent” arbitrator is suggested:
“the arbiter must be a bona fide, highly respected statistician and one with some experience in climate science — OF YOUR CHOICE.” (his emphasis)
c.f. “this is a purely statistical issue”
#3673 further reference to the Courtillot et al paper reviewed by Phil Jones
Further discussion of this mail at my site:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/11/24/the-cru-dendro-team-barking-up-the-wrong-tree/
4897
Dear Dr. Briffa:
Would you be willing to review a Comment and a Reply that have been submitted to Geophysical Research Letters? The Comment is on a published article written by McIntyre and McKitrick entitled “Hockey Sticks, Principal Components and Spurious Significance.” The text of the Comment and Reply totals 7 double-spaced pages.
1119.txt
Phil Jones -> Kevin Trenberth
“Just heard that Peter Thorne’s HadAT paper has been accepted. Revision accepted in 48hrs by JGR. Editor said major revision (like your GRL paper), but this was major.
Can’t have gone back to reviewers !”
4637.txt
date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:59:51 +0000
from: Tim Osborn
subject: Re: Science paper
to: Henry Pollack ,Keith Briffa
Thanks for you congratulations, Henry, and also for your helpful
review. Sorry that our response to your main concern (about the need
to consider *causes* of warming/cooling) was limited to a paragraph
at the end of the supplementary information, but we were space-limited!
Best regards
Tim
At 14:51 15/02/2006, Henry Pollack wrote:
>Hi Tim and Keith,
>
>Congratulations on your recent paper appearing in Science on 10
>February 2006. I was one of the reviewers (see attached), and
>appreciated your approach to quantifying the spatial extent of
>climatic excursions.
>
>Cheers,
>Henry
Off topic, I’m afraid, but I just discovered that Ian (harry) Harris is/was the Election Agent for the Norwich Green Party and did not want his connection with UEA/CRU broadcast.
See 4648.txt
#1035
At 10:24 15/04/2008, Gerard van der Schrier wrote to Keith Briffa:
“About the Int.J.Clim. paper: I’ve gone through the remarks you made and which you send me. There are some issues the referees raised, like the infilling of data, which are solved easily. We just have to put more emphasis on the remark we made that infilling is only used for T, the places where P is infilled are flagged as absent and not used in the analysis. I expect that other points are (nearly) as easy.”
#1678
date: Wed Jun 25 14:57:44 2003
from: Keith Briffa
subject: RE: Regarding paper submitted to The Holocene
to: “Isaksson, Elisabeth”
CLIMATE AND SEA VARIABILITY AROUND SVALBARD ISAKSSON ET AL.
snip – I’m really just interested in who did the reviews and of whom. Database stuff. Issues come later.
1192.txt
(not review based, so do snip, but…)
Phil Jones -> Rick Plitz
“The original raw data are not lost either. I could reconstruct what we had from some DoE reports we published in the mid-1980’s”
Naughty FOIA hasn’t be listening to that, have they.
0795
Savva and Berninger submission to Nature Geoscience (Heike Langenburg) in 2008
Review was Briffa, plus he handed it to an unidentified colleague.
#1862 Briffa reviews Shaopeng Huang paper
date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 11:18 -0400
from: jgr-atmospheres@agu.org
subject: Review Received by Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres
to: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk
Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres
Title: “On reconciliation of borehole and proxy based temperature reconstructions over the last five centuries”
Author: Shaopeng Huang
Review comments included. Briffa recommends rejection
#0670.txt is the initial request from editor Alan Robock to Briffa for the above review.
#3238
date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 15:40:44 +0100
from: “R Warren”
subject: ESF proposal
to: “‘Mike Hulme'”
Mike,
I have to list three referees : since most of the people we’d choose are
actually IN the proposal or are proposed participants … may need to
choose others. However it doesn’t actually SAY that they can’t be
participants or even that they must be independent. But I was thinking
of listing Steve Schneider and Hadi Dowlatabadi. I need a third. Might
they feel excluded from the workshop though? There wasn’t budget to fly
in people from the US. Perhaps a third referee could be Jan since he is
not actually involved? (Although his insititution is involved).
Also there is an opportunity to list someone NOT to referee the
proposal, in strict confidence! Richard Tol?!
Your thoughts?
5332.txt
Cook to Hughes and sundry, in regard to a paper submitted to IJC by Schofield and Barker critical of hockey stick
So much for respecting the confidentiality of the review process.
Re: Ross McKitrick (Nov 24 17:12),
Interesting, there is an entry on the department page of Richard Barker:
However, IJC, Barker’s personal page or Schofield’s page do not mention the paper (or anything alike). So I suppose that after the treatment of the statistical experts listed as recepients in Cook’s email the authors decided to abandon the paper … I would still love to read it and definitely hear the story of its “peer” review!
Re: Jean S (Nov 24 18:09),
aha, the story is continuing in #2098 and #4641, maybe there is a happy ending after all 😉
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=2960
Briffa turning Consequences of larch budmoth outbreaks on the climate significance of ring width and stable isotopes in larch by Weidner et al. down from the Holocene.
Includes all the comments on the paper
____________________________
2008-07-28
Holocene
Editor-Briffa
Reviewers – not stated
manuscript – Weidner et al, Consequences of larch budmoth outbreaks on the climate significance of ring width and stable isotopes in larch
Result – declined
Early Mann thoughts on M&M:
From: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Ray Bradley , “Malcolm Hughes” , Mike MacCracken , Steve Schneider , tom crowley , Tom Wigley , Jonathan Overpeck , asocci@cox.net, Michael Oppenheimer , Keith Briffa , Phil Jones , Tim Osborn , Tim_Profeta@lieberman.senate.gov, Ben Santer , Gabi Hegerl , Ellen Mosley-Thompson , “Lonnie G. Thompson” , Kevin Trenberth
Subject: CONFIDENTIAL Fwd:
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 13:47:44 -0500
Cc: mann@virginia.edu
Dear All,
This has been passed along to me by someone whose identity will remain in confidence.
Who knows what trickery has been pulled or selective use of data made. Its clear that
“Energy and Environment” is being run by the baddies–only a shill for industry would have
republished the original Soon and Baliunas paper as submitted to “Climate Research” without
even editing it. Now apparently they’re at it again…
My suggested response is:
1) to dismiss this as stunt, appearing in a so-called “journal” which is already known to
have defied standard practices of peer-review. It is clear, for example, that nobody we
know has been asked to “review” this so-called paper
2) to point out the claim is nonsense since the same basic result has been obtained by
numerous other researchers, using different data, elementary compositing techniques, etc.
Who knows what sleight of hand the authors of this thing have pulled. Of course, the usual
suspects are going to try to peddle this crap. The important thing is to deny that this has
any intellectual credibility whatsoever and, if contacted by any media, to dismiss this for
the stunt that it is..
Thanks for your help,
mike
two people have a forthcoming ‘Energy & Environment’ paper that’s being unveiled tomoro
(monday) that — in the words of one Cato / Marshall/ CEI type — “will claim that Mann
arbitrarily ignored paleo data within his own record and substituted other data for
missing values that dramatically affected his results.
When his exact analysis is rerun with all the data and with no data
substitutions, two very large warming spikes will appear that are greater than the 20th
century.
Personally, I’d offer that this was known by most people who understand Mann’s
methodology: it can be quite sensitive to the input data in the early centuries.
Anyway, there’s going to be a lot of noise on this one, and knowing Mann’s very thin
skin I am afraid he will react strongly, unless he has learned (as I hope he has) from
the past….”
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
From CG1:
Email – 1-311 . 1051915601 2003-05-02
Editor- Briffa
Journal – Holocene
Reviewer – Mann
Manuscript – Gil-Alana (fractionally integrated techniques used to show increased persistence in global temperature record in 20th century).
Email -680
Date. 2003-06-04
Editor – Briffa
Reviewer – Cook
Manuscript _Using a New 672-Year Tree-Ring Drought Reconstruction from
West-Central Montana to Evaluate Severe Drought Teleconnections in
the Western U.S. and Possible Climatic Forcing by the Pacific Decadal
Oscillation” by D.A. Hunzicker and P. Camill
3505
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:50:27 -0400
Editor: Olsen.Tony
reviewer: Edward Cook
Journal:JABES
manuscript – Yoo and Wright paper.
Rejected
Review copied to Briffa
Using “reject” as a search term comes up with a big list.
#0845
cc: gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov
date: Tue Jan 15 14:49:24 2008
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: Edouard Bard
to: mann@psu.edu
Mike,
Good triumphs over bad – eventually!
It does take a long time though!
Maybe Ray P. wants to do something. He is more up to speed
on all this – and reads French!
Cheers
Phil
At 14:33 15/01/2008, Michael Mann wrote:
Phil,
thanks for sending on, I’ve sent to Ray P. The Passoti piece is remarkably bad for a
Science “news” piece, it would be worth discussing this w/ the editor, Donald Kennedy
who is quite reasonable, and probably a bit embarrassed by this.
My french isn’t great, but I could see there was something also about the Moberg
reconstructions, Courtilot obviously trying to use that to arge that the recent warming
isn’t anomalous (even though the Moberg recon actually supports that it is).
I’ll need to read over all of this and try to digest when I have a chance later today.
Keep up the good fight, the attacks are getting more and more desparate as the
contrarians are increasingly losing the battle (both scientifically, and in the public
sphere). one thing I’ve learned is that the best way to deal w/ these attacks is just to
go on doing good science, something I learned from Ben…
talk to you later,
mike
Well, the Phil Jones wrote:
Gavin, Mike,
Some emails within this and an attachment. Send on to Ray Pierrehumbert.
Maybe you’re aware but things in France are getting bad.
One thing might be a letter to Science re the diagram in an editorial in Science.
I did talk to the idiot who wrote this, but couldn’t persuade him it was rubbish. This
isn’t the worst – see this email below from Jean Jouzel and Edouard Bard. My French is
poor
at the best of times, but this all seems unfair pressure on Edouard.
See also this in French about me – lucky I can’t follow it that well !
I know all this is a storm in a teacup – and I hope I’d show your resilience Mike if
this was directed at me. I’m just happy I’m in the UK, and our Royal Society knows
who and why it appoints its fellows!
In the Science piece, the two Courtillot papers are rejected. I have the journal
rejection emails – the other reviewer wasn’t quite as strong as mine, but they were
awfiul.
Cheers
[snip]….
3822
date: Fri Jan 30 08:27:28 2004
from: Phil Jones <
subject: FYI – Confidential of course
to: k.briffa, t.osborn
Fwd of MMann e-mail:
…Hi phil,
thanks again–wow, there is a lot going on I wasn't even aware of. Thanks for keeping me
posted. Meanwhile, MM have submitted a comment to Nature and we have already written a
reply. I thought I had sent to you, but if not here (confidentially) is their comment
and our reply…
0214.txt
cc: Edward Cook
date: Wed, 9 May 2007 15:59:51 -0400
from: Edward Cook
subject: Fwd: 2007JD008705 (Editor – John Austin): Review Overdue – First
to: Keith Briffa
Title: “Simulation of ENSO forcings on U.S. drought by the HadCM3 coupled climate model.”
Authors: Simon Busby, Keith Briffa, and Timothy Osborn
Journal: Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres
Message from Cook to Briffa “As you can see,
I am slowly winding my way towards reviewing Simon’s paper.
Will do so by next week.”
Title: “Simulation of ENSO forcings on U.S. drought by the HadCM3 coupled climate model.
Published
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008705.shtml
#0938 Rejection letter from Ruth Lieberman Editor, JGR-Atmospheres to Osborn and Wallace. This one is interesting because it seems to have died with this letter from May 2005. However, it listed on the home page of Osborn on 11/24/2011 as under the Under Review/Submitted category to JGR-Atmoshperes with no date. This gives the impression that it is still in the peer review process.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/papepages/publist.htm
Reviews and ratings included in email.
Osborn’s review of paper by Nathan P. Gillet et.al.
Nathan P. Gillet is editor of Journal of Climate.
2626.txt
date: Mon Jun 11 13:06:54 2001
from: Tim Osborn
subject: review of JD/2001/000589
to: jgr-atmospheres@agu.org, jgrd@dao.gsfc.nasa.gov
“Dear Steven,
Here is my belated review of the manuscript by Gillet et al.
“How linear is the Arctic Oscillation response to greenhouse gases?”.
Overall, the manuscript presents some interesting new results,
inter-model comparisons and provides some discussion of the
possible physical/dynamical mechanisms that may be important
in generating the behaviour of the Arctic Oscillation in response
to enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations. This is certainly
appropriate subject matter for JGR-Atmospheres, and the overall
method and data are adequately used. I would recommend publication
in JGR-Atmospheres, after addressing the minor comments that I
outline below.”
More review comments in email.
Published – JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2001JD000589.shtml
5332 31 Mar 08
Ed Cook reviewing a paper for IJC. Tells Malcolm Bradley that he’s ‘on the case as it were’
Briffa unofficially reviews something being “reviewed” by Ed Cook
4937.txt
date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 12:09:04 -0400
from: Edward Cook <
subject: REALLY URGENT for you too!!!
to: Keith Briffa
Hi Keith,
This is not terribly kosher, but I am sending you the paper I am
reviewing that attempts to destroy dendroclimatology as presently
done, and my present review of it. This does not have to be sent in
until next week sometime, so there is time for you to add any
comments. Doing this is justified in my view because the authors use
your Tornetrask reconstruction as the main whipping boy. The paper is
rather mathematical in parts, but the bias they show in condemning
the standard method of climate reconstruction is pretty apparent. I
don’t know if there is a hidden agenda or just an effort on their
part to show us dumb asses how to do it right! Anyway, give me a call
at home tomorrow if you wish, but certainly read what I have sent you
and please recommend changes or additions.
Cheers,
Ed
P.S. Please keep this confidential for now since it is a paper under review.
—
==================================
Dr. Edward R. Cook
Doherty Senior Scholar and
Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Palisades, New York 10964 USA
Keith is your go-to man for impartial reviews!
0525.txt
Date: Tue Sep 29 15:47:15 1998
from: Keith Briffa
subject: Re: reference
to: “Raymond S. Bradley”
Dear Ray
thanks a million for the reference. I am sending the proposal for your files. It is rather a large file ( only because of the Figures – the text is only 9 pages total ) so I am sending it zipped. If you have a problem reading it – assuming you wish to- I’ll fax it. As for the reference to your book , I still await this as I am supposedly reviewing it for The Holocene. It is of course comforting to know that I will be able to give it the rich praise that I know it will deserve. Best wishes to you and I look forward to sharing a good bottle ( no , a very good bottle) of red wine with you – perhaps even at NERC’s expense!
Keith
At 06:22 PM 9/28/98 -0400, you wrote:
>I sent the attached to sholt@nerc…today as an attachment. Will mail the
>original tomorrow. Good luck with this!
>ray
>
>Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\briffa-nerc.doc”
>
>Raymond S. Bradley
>Professor and Head of Department
>Department of Geosciences
>University of Massachusetts
>Amherst, MA 01003-5820
#3003 (This email also has a trip to Greece AND Aspen, data quality concerns AND a slag against CA – thought it should go here though)
“Phil Jones said the following on 7/2/2007 5:43 AM:
Tom,
Our librarian (who only works Thursday pm) wonders if there will ever be hard copy versions printed by NOAA. He is great at looking after our library, but I think he wants to fill in a foot of space with these books if they are to appear.
I’m often getting my knuckles wrapped for putting books back in the wrong place !
I see CA is getting a head of steam up with people emailing NOAA about IPCC and also about US HCN. There was on comment that was amusing and stupid. If a US HCN observer denies permission for CA to take pictures of the site, then the data should be withdrawn !! I see they are trying to get NOAA to say who withdrew the access to certain files with locations and observer names on them.
By the way, I have got the paper – review will be friendly though!
Got back from a weekend in Greece, talking to some politicians about climate change. Armed guards at Norwich airport on my return ! The times we live in……
Cheers Phil”
Reply:
“date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 09:48:06 -0400
from: Thomas C Peterson
subject: Re: WWR Volumes for the 1990s
to: Phil Jones
Hi, Phil,
A weekend in Greece sounds lovely.
I just double checked and no, there is no hard copy version of WWR planned.
There is a CD version available with software to bring up the data for one station at a time, but no book.
Dick just told me that one of my concerns about ERSST verified while I was in Aspen: the climatology used can make a big difference, not globally, but in at least one particular location. So we’re still working at improving the product.
When I talked to the NWS, they said that the CIO of NOAA decided it would violate privacy laws if they allowed the name and address of observers be made public & the same is true of photos of the station if it showed any of the observer’s house or a well-known landmark. ‘Tis rough when we’re attacked for following the law.
One Congressman has requested information about USHCN that sounds straight out of CA. He requested copies of paper metadata. Our calculation is that this would be a total of 65,000 pages of information (all of which requires us to black out the observer’s personal information prior to providing it).
Regards, Tom”
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but what this thread is supposed to collect is information about JOURNAL reviews, not opinions in general.
Appreciated, I hope this all helps. I’ll be sure to get it better next time, and thanks for all this. I can realize how inundated you’ve been this week.
1695.txt sort of relates to this topic.
snip – there’s no need to paste emails or post up commentary. I want contributions to lists of reviewers only.
#3981 Santer>McGregor
Reviewer #2
Reviewee Santer
10 Jul 2008
Email – 198. 2006-04-13
Journal of Climate
Reviewer -Osborn
Editor -Weaver
Manuscript – Zorita et al Comment on Mann et al and Mann et al Reply
635. 2006-07-31
Quaternary Science Reviews
Editor – Claude Hillaire-Marcel
Reviewer – Briffa
Title: On the ‘Divergence Problem’ in Northern Forests:
A Review of the Tree-Ring Evidence and Possible Causes
Quaternary Science Reviews
#1909 Jones reviewed manuscript
date: Mon Jun 2 14:13:19 2008
from: Phil Jones
subject: RE: Nature Geoscience Review Request – manuscript
to: “Newton, Alicia”
Title:”Impact of volcanic forcing on tropical temperatures during the last four centuries”
Authors: Rosanne D’Arrigo, Rob Wilson, and Alexander Tudhope
Editor: Alicia Newton
Pubilication: Nature Geoscience
4218.txt
Bob Davis -> Hans von Storch (wrt fallout from Soon & Baliunas)
“It has yet to be demonstrated to me that there is any problem. A paper has been published that some people disagree with…the authors have responded.
Isn’t this the nature of the scientific process that has worked just fine for centuries?
…
I cannot agree with your editorial since, in my view, there is no problem with the peer-review process.”
# 4862 Briffa & Mann Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:11:49 -0500
about “We had specifically discussed this in Bern and decided
>> that Zwiers could more objectively reflect that group than either
>> Zorita for Von Storch who have been involved in ad hominem public
>> attacks against us”
Mann does a bully, refuses cooperation and Briffa crawls back “> We simply will not allow you to withdraw . You know perfectly well
> that you are too important in all this to take such action. If it
> requires my talking to Eduardo and getting him to withdraw , then so
> be it. “
#1081 A request for Briffa to review
Title: “A matter of divergence – tracking recent warming at hemispheric scales using tree-ring data”
Authors Rob Wilson, Rosanne D’Arrigo, Brendan Buckley, Ulf
Büntgen, Jan Esper, David Frank, Brian Luckman, Serge
Payette, Russell S. Vose, and Don Youngblut
Journal:JGR-Atmospheres
Ediotr: Ruth Lieberman
Published
#0211 Briffa informs Simon Busby he is reviewing the above paper.
0211*
cc: Tim Osborn
date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:18:29 +0000
from: Keith Briffa
subject: Re: Paper and Mexico meeting
to: “Simon”
#4109 Briffa is a reviewer
date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:37:00 -0400
from: jgr-atmospheres
subject: Re: 2005JD006352 Review Overdue – Third notice
to: Keith Briffa
Title: “”On the Long-Term Context for Late 20th Century Warming”
Authors: Rosanne D’Arrigo, Robert Wilson, Gordon Jacoby
Editor:>> John Austin
JournalJGR-Atmospheres
Published
Sorry, not quite what you are looking for, but a back story around the editor of the Soon & Baliunas paper:
http://newzealandclimatechange.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/climategate-2-and-corruption-of-peer-review/
It is the story of a plot by the ‘team’ to get Chris de Freitas sacked for allowing ‘contrary’ articles to be published in journal of Climate Research. In addition to key member of the team being involved, Pachauri is copied in as cc in many of the most outrageous comments. He does nothing to stop his out of control ‘leading scientists’.
Perhaps your incisive analysis could add to it? May be of some use?
# 4616
date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 11:36:44 -0400
from: “Michael E. Mann” >
subject: Re: Your letter to Science
to: Edward Cook Malcolm Hughes
Ed,
It will take some time to digest these comments, but my initial response is one of some
disappointment. I will resist the temptation to make the letter to Science available to the
others on this list, because of my fears of violating the embargo policy (I know examples
of where doing so has led to Science retracting a piece form publication). So thanks for
also resisting the temptation to do so… (More follows)
#4921 Briffa provides short negative review
date: Thu Apr 24 15:42:36 2003
from: Keith Briffa
subject: Re: Can you provide a brief comment if not full review?
to: Keith Alverson
Title:?
Decription:”recent decoupling of temperature and tree ring
indicese in high latitude eurasia”
Editor: Solomina/Alverson
Journal: PAGES – Paleo3
#3852 Jones requests Henry Diaz to review an article submitted to “The Holocene”.
cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk
date: Wed Mar 19 16:23:26 2008
from: Phil Jones
subject: Other possible reviewers
to: “Matthews J.A.”
Author list: Jones, Briffa, Schmidt, Mann etc.
Article appears to be this one
http://hol.sagepub.com/content/19/1/3.abstract
#4274 Jones has recieved Diaz review. The ariticle will be accepted.
cc: mann@psu.edu
date: Wed Jun 4 09:23:19 2008
from: Phil Jones
subject: A couple of things
to: gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov
Two blind revieweres involved.
0583.txt
Fri Jul 22 16:03:58 2005
Phil Jones wrote:
Kevin,
Whilst in Exeter, I got this from Peter Thorne (who is reviewing it for
Science).
[…]
Peter went on about not passing this on to anyone else and also what
Ch 3 should be concluding about the whole LT issue and what CCSP says.
I felt what he was saying was far too strong, so won’t go into it.
#2922 Crowley Reviews Briffa et. al. 2000
cc: tcrowley@ocean.tamu.edu
date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 10:52:26 -0500
from: tom crowley
subject: Briffa et al review JGRd2000R306
to: jgr@gaia.envsci.Rutgers.EDU
Journal: JGR
Editor:Roni
http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/0795.txt
Reviewer—Biffra
Reviewee—Yuliya Savva and Frank Berninger
Subject—-Sulphur deposition causes a large-scale growth decline in boreal forests in Eurasia”
Note: An explanation for the reduced growth in Northern Eurasia pine trees post 1950.
🙂
Just to inject a little levity into the thread. 😉
It seems Phil reviewed the Hack before it was done.
#0950
date: Mon Oct 19 09:19:37 2009
from: Phil Jones
subject: Review of the Hack proposal
to: “Bamzai, Anjuli”
Anjuli,
Here is the review and also the signed non-conflict page.
Cheers
Phil
# 3323 Regarding review of the Man EOS 03 paper:
From: Ellen Mosley-Thompson
Subject: Re: position paper by Mann,
Bradley et al that is a refutation to Soon et al
To: Judy Jacobs , “Michael E. Mann”
Judy and Mike –
This sounds outstanding. Am I right in assuming that Fred reviews and approves the Forum pieces? If so, can you hint about expediting this. Timing is very critical here. Judy, thanks for taking the bull by the horns and getting the ball rolling.
Best regards,
Ellen
#1804
[This email includes two reviews of a paper submitted to Science – I suppose the paper concerned is Jones, PD, Osborn, TJ and Briffa, KR (2001) The evolution of climate over the last millennium. Science, 292. pp. 662-667]
Fri, 09 Feb 2001
from: Phil Jones to
Julia Uppenbrink, Senior Editor, Science
0822
date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:35:39 +0100
from: Martin Juckes
subject: Re: Mitrie
to: Anders Moberg
” Delete the references to Mann et al.
> 2003a,b and Soon et al 2003 here. More relevant references are e.g.
> Esper et al. 2005, Rutherford et al. 2005, Burger and Cubasch 2005, von
> Storch et al. 2006 (Science 312, p.529; Response to Comment on…) and
> Mann et al. 2007 (a new paper which we definitely should refer to -”
Regardless of the fact the paper was submitted in 2006…
Another in this chain:
0995
from: Martin Juckes
subject: Mitrie
to: REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED
Hello,
I hadn’t noticed that Eduardo’s email asking to be taken off the author list
only came to me . It arrived last Friday just before I left for the airport;
here is the relevant quote:
“I have been reading the last version of the mitrie paper yesterday.
Unfortunately, I found too many places in the manuscript with wich I
cannot
agree, in particular in the conclusions and in section 4,
Much earlier (August 2006) in the chain in regards to Mitrie: 0193
An inline response to Eduardo Zorita’s comments.
0947
date: Fri, 11 May 2007 19:21:20 UT
from: REDACTED
subject: 2007GL030571 (Editor – James Famiglietti): Request to Review from
*PLEASE
ACCEPT OR DECLINE USING THE LINK PROVIDED BELOW*
Dear Dr. Jones:
Would you be willing and available to review “Adjustment for proxy number and coherence in
a large-scale temperature reconstruction” by David Frank, Jan Esper, and Edward Cook,
submitted for possible publication in the Geophysical Research Letters. This is a
resubmission of a rejected manuscript which you previously reviewed.
Jones dealing with the Cook mutineers…
1042
date: Tue Nov 9 07:43:28 2004
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: J Climate review ( JCL-5363)
to: Beth white
Beth,
I am able to do the review, so send the URL and id. The time frame shouldn’t present a
problem. It will be useful paper to review as I’m involved in the relevant chapter of the
IPCC’s
WGI report.
Regards
Phil
At 20:54 08/11/2004, you wrote:
David Randall, an Editor of Journal of Climate, has suggested you as a possible reviewer
for a paper entitled “Urban heat island assessment: Metadata are important” (JCL-5363)
by Thomas C. Peterson and Timothy W. Owen.
Jones keeping a hand on the UHI tiller…
#2544
Briffa Nature Geoscience
Sulphur deposition causes a large-scale growth decline in boreal
forests in Eurasia
Probably junk but helps with ‘the decline’ so got published anyway:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GB003749.shtml
#5110
Phil Jones gets testy with Glenn McGregor and threatens not to submit papers to IJC anymore after they reject his paper.
“Perturbing a
>>Weather Generator using factors developed from
>>Regional Climate Model simulations”
#0497 Jones tells Mann that Bradley had reviewed Jones 1998 Halocene paper
date: Thu, 06 May 1999 17:37:34 +0100
from: Phil Jones
subject: Straight to the Point
to: mann@snow.geo.umass.edu
Publication: The Holocene May 1998 vol. 8 no. 4 455-471
Title: “High-resolution palaeoclimatic records for the last millennium: interpretation, integration and comparison with General Circulation Model control-run temperatures”
Authors: Jones, Briffa, Barnet, Tett
“I would suspect that you’ve been unhappy about us coming out
with a paper going back 1000 years only a few months after
your Nature paper (back to 1400). Ray knew all about this as
he was one of the reviewers.”
One Trackback
[…] Discussion of Reviews […]