cc: Anders Moberg , Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de, esper@wsl.ch, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, m.allen1@physics.ox.ac.uk, weber@knmi.nl, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 12:17:05 -0400 from: hegerl@duke.edu subject: Re: Fwd: cp-2006-0049 - Major Revision to: Martin Juckes Hi all, I'll have a look later this week, I am swamped right now after coming back from vacation. I tend to agree that its ok to appendix it (it is taken care of so I wouldnt worry about funding) and would tend to think its better detailed and appendixed since this controversy is all about detail, but I am happy with Martin's preference also! Gabi Quoting Martin Juckes : > Hello, > > this is a work in progress, but my latest revision is attached. In > addition to > the reviews I sent last week, there is an editors comment posted on the CPD > site which is referring to our CP manuscript. I think this is the source of > Referee 1's comments that we ignored the editor's recommendation: it would be > easy to think that the his comment referred to the CPD manuscript. > > I half agree with Anders about reducing the prominence of section 3. However, > this project was funded because of the controversy surrounding the McIntyre > and McKitrick vs. Mann et al. debate, so I think it should stay in the paper. > Here, I have shortened it to one page and moved it to after the main results > section. I've tried to make the justification clearer, in terms of the need > to address claims that the whole approach is ill-founded. > > The 3 files attached are: a draft revision, a list of changes, and draft > responses -- still incomplete in many cases. > > Other points: > >> >> 2) sec 2, para 1. Change the mentioning of the scale factor (about >> Esper) by 1.73, to specifying the time period and target region, which >> is more informative (but still complete). > > I've added the time period. I think putting the number is helpful and > does not > add much to length. > >> >> 3) We could omit the footnote abourt "underestimation" >> > I've shortened this. > >> 4) sec 2.8. Rather than saying that "the debate is ongoing (several >> refs)", we could mention some of the findings in these and other refs >> (see below). For example, we could mention that results are dependent on >> detrending/non-detrending, calibration period length, noise level, noise >> type. Possible additional refs: >> > I'll think about this. Whatever we say needs to be concise. > >> @Article{sto06, >> author = {von Storch, H. and Zorita, E. and Jones, J. M. and >> Gonz\'alez-Rouco, J. F. and Tett, S. F. B }, >> title = {Response to comment on "{R}econstructing past climate from >> noisy data"}, >> journal = {Science}, >> year = 2006, >> volume = 312, >> doi = {10.1126/science.1121571} >> } >> >> @Article{zor07, >> author = {Zorita, E. and von Storch, H. and Gonz\'alez-Rouco, F.}, >> title = {Comment on "{T}esting the fidelity of methods used in >> proxy-based reconstructions of past climate"}, >> journal = {Journal of Climate}, >> year = {2007, in print} >> } >> >> @Article{wah06, >> author = {Wahl, E. R. and Ritson, D. M. and Ammann, C. M.}, >> title = {Comment on "{R}econstructing past climate from noisy data"}, >> journal = {Science}, >> year = 2006, >> volume = 312, >> DOI = {10.1126/science.1120866} >> } >> >> @Article{man07, >> author = {Mann, M. E. and Rutherford, S. and Wahl, E. and Ammann, C.}, >> title = {Reply to comment by {Z}orita et al on {M}ann, >> {R}utherford, {W}ahl, and {A}mmann '05}, >> journal = {Journal of Climate}, >> year = {2007, in print} >> } >> >> @Article{dmi06, >> author = {Dmitriev, E. V. and Chavro, A. I.}, >> title = {Possible causes of the underestimation of paleoclimate >> low-frequency variability by statistical methods}, >> journal = {Izvestiya, Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics}, >> year = 2006, >> volume = {42}, >> number = {5}, >> pages = {586-597} >> } >> >> 5) sec 4.2. The conclusion that "...the choice of proxy records is one >> reason why different reconstructions show different ranges ..." is an >> important one (even if it is not new). It should be mentioned both in >> the abstract and the conclusions. >> >> 6) Remove the specific reference to the year AD 1091 >> > OK, changed to `in the 11th century'. > >> 7) At all relevant places, make it clear when we refer to the TAR and >> when we refer to AR4 (if we do the latter at all) >> > I'll check >> 8) Appendix A, INVR. Isn't there some mistakes in how the indices i and >> k are used? As far as I can see, it should be: >> > corrected > > cheers, > Martin >