Thursday, January 19, 2012

2076.txt

date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 16:06:28 +0100
from: Adrian Simmons <adrian.simmonsatXYZxyzwf.int>
subject: Re: First draft of ERA/HadCRUH paper
to: P.JonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk

<x-flowed>
Phil

Are you at the PCMDI dinner tomorrow night? If so, I'll see you there.
I'm attending the WCRP JSC meeting at ESSIC, University of Maryland, and
attending the PCMDI dinner was an optional extra that I have booked.

Adrian


P.JonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk wrote:
> Adrian,
> I'm on my way to Washington today as well. I'll
> be in Bethesda at a USDoE meeting to Thursday.
> The first day is a session to honour Larry Gates.
> I'll be looking through the draft and send you some
> comments early next week.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>> Peter
>>
>> I used the last stage of a flight to Washington to run through your
>> comments. The attached document includes my comments on your comments. I
>> disagree with a few, but not many. Thanks for spotting some howlers, and
>> for leading me to spot another small error. Earlier in the flight I
>> found a few more small things in my first rereading of the text.
>>
>> I'll start making the changes in a week or so's time. There are a couple
>> of points you raise that I would appreciate Phil's comments on, as
>> indicated in the attached.
>>
>> Thanks again for a very careful and thoughtful reading.
>>
>> Adrian
>>
>>
>> peter.thorne wrote:
>>> Dear Adrian,
>>>
>>> there's some really interesting stuff in here. I'd definitely suggest
>>> JGR as first home with J. Clim as a reserve. JGR would probably put the
>>> appendix as Supp Info and allow some of your other "not shown"s to be
>>> submitted as supp info if inclined which may be a way forwards if its
>>> felt any is sufficiently important.
>>>
>>> As Phil or Kate will confirm, my modus operandi is to provide lots of
>>> suggestions so please don't be alarmed at the amount of inline comments
>>> when you open the attached. I don't foresee any show stoppers based upon
>>> taking most of today to read through it.
>>>
>>> Major suggestions would be:
>>>
>>> 1. Alight on a central theme to re-order around so that the paper
>>> narrative is clearer as that will make it easier for a reader. The
>>> RH/=constant is an obvious theme. Then rewrite in particular your
>>> abstract and discussion around such a theme. At the moment the text
>>> feels a little directionless in some places I guess because you wrote it
>>> in half hour availability slots and whilst the analysis was ongoing.
>>>
>>> 2. Do more on your sea leads land hypothesis so we can back it up more
>>> quantitatively. A lead lag correlation analysis should support it and
>>> seems relatively trivial. There may be other analyses that we could do
>>> relatively easily that provide some better quantitative support. We
>>> don't want another Wentz et al precip trends type situation where
>>> something goes out and gets high profile and then later nobody truly
>>> believes.
>>>
>>> 3. Pull out your ERA-40 ERA_interim differences discussion that occurs
>>> in several places into a table (and maybe figure) that clearly
>>> encapsulates the differences between the two products (model spec, obs
>>> input, treatment of obs etc.) in one place. I think this would make it
>>> more useful as a resource and more understandable to the target audience
>>> and reduce the text somewhat.
>>>
>>> 4. Try to reduce cross-talk between text and figure captions for brevity
>>> and for readability.
>>>
>>> 5. Cut out cases where we are leaving obvious low hanging fruit issues
>>> that interested parties with a political persuasion could abuse. We're
>>> better to avoid leaving ourselves open incase we suddenly find this
>>> paper at the centre of a blogstorm (Phil will attest to this).
>>>
>>> Lastly, procedural issues that we have to abide by so you have a heads
>>> up now rather than a last minute panic:
>>>
>>> 1. The inserted acknowledgement is required.
>>>
>>> 2. We need to push it through internal Met Office review before it can
>>> be submitted. This means putting it under David Parker and Peter Stott's
>>> noses and our making changes to their satisfaction. On the plus side
>>> this soft review means less probability of heartache when we come to
>>> gambling at the external reviewer long table.
>>>
>>> 3. We will have to sign crown copyright forms and the work will be crown
>>> copyright as a result of our involvement. Both candidate journals have
>>> well bedded down procedures in place to this end.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>> --
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> Adrian Simmons
>> European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts
>> Shinfield Park, Reading, RG2 9AX, UK
>> Phone: +44 118 949 9700
>> Fax: +44 118 986 9450
>> --------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>

--
--------------------------------------------------
Adrian Simmons
European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts
Shinfield Park, Reading, RG2 9AX, UK
Phone: +44 118 949 9700
Fax: +44 118 986 9450
--------------------------------------------------
</x-flowed>

No comments:

Post a Comment