Sunday, March 18, 2012

2644.txt

date: Mon, 14 May 2007 12:35:36 +0100
from: "Mark New" <mark.newatXYZxyze.ox.ac.uk>
subject: RE: Advice on paper submitted to GRL
to: "'Phil Jones'" <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>

Phil,

Thanks for this - gives me some guidance and I can now go ahead and think
through a decision.

These emails will not go any further.

Mark

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk]
> Sent: 14 May 2007 11:54
> To: Mark New
> Subject: RE: Advice on paper submitted to GRL
>
>
> Mark,
> This is a difficult one. I began by reading the paper (v2) and then
> the comments on this version. I also briefly looked at the responses
> the authors had made to v1.
>
> The first issue that struck me was that the paper was too long for
> GRL, but your unit calculation seems to indicate it will fit.I have
> noticed
> many GRL papers going over the old 4 page limit !
>
> There seem 2 issues related to the paper, firstly their usage of
> the various MSU/sonde series (which rev 1 takes issue with) and second
> the issue of the model uncertainties (and the use of the QUMP
> simulations to address that).
>
> Reviewers 2 and 3 clearly don't understand what the authors have done
> wrt this second issue. The paper is NOT an extension of Santer et al.
> (2005, 2006), as it doesn't relate to inter-model uncertainty, but to
> intra-model uncertainty - with just the one model (HadCM3). I can't see
> how the authors could have made it clearer what they have done. Maybe
> if they went for JGR they would have more time to explain - say which
> parameterizations were perturbed etc.
>
> The work is clearly novel enough for GRL - it is clearly too novel for
> Rev 3.
>
> Rev 2 isn't that up with the upper air datasets when he/she suggests
> referring to Angell/Oort and Prabhakara. These datasets were dismissed
> in the CCSP report - which I was on the review panel for, by the way.
>
> So, in summary so far, Rev 2 and 3 are not aware of the way climate
> modelling is going, haven't understood the paper and are not that aware
> of what are good or bad upper air datasets.
>
> The more difficult review is #1 (Christy). He is saying the paper can
> be
> published (and he likes the way some aspects are illustrated), but he
> wants his data and his interpretation of it to come to the fore.
>
> His review contains a number of inaccuracies:
>
> 1. There was warming before 1979. All this controversy wouldn't
> have happened if the satellite record had started in 1975. There was a
> climate jump in 1976/77 and this is alluded to in the AR4 Chapter
> on Obs (you can download all the chapters now by the way).
> There was also some warming before this at the global surface
> and in HadAT2 which goes back to 1958.
>
> 2. There are other MSU analyses (Vinnikov and Grody, UMd and
> also Zou et al by NOAA). These don't produce a 2LT series like
> UAH and RSS, but for Ch 2 they get more warming than either
> UAH and RSS - Zou et al is for a later period from 1987, but this
> does include the problematic period Christy goes on about in 1992.
>
> These datasets are clearly not one of the 8 datasets that Christy et al
> (2007) refer to.
>
> 3. Christy shouldn't refer to yet to be submitted papers.
>
> 4. He also shouldn't say assumed anthropogenic warming as that is
> peripheral to the arguments in the paper.
>
> 5. You can't use Reanalyses - as they have their own problems. They are
> better after 1987, OK for some things from 1979, but not trends. This is
> concluded in the IPCC Chapter as well.
>
> 6. My own view of all this, is that it is the sondes that are likely
> wrong,
> especially in the tropics. There is a mixture at some sites of day and
> night launches and these require different adjustments. RSS is about
> right, as it agrees with the surface. The latter just cannot be that
> wrong
> over the period from 1979. There is a lot more going into the surface
> data than the sondes. The surface isn't an issue raised in the paper
> though.
>
> Going with my thought of suggesting this should go to JGR, where they
> can expand on the arguments isn't going to get over the Christy review.
> He
> will make the same points.
>
> I'm probably biased but my own view is that the paper is probably OK,
> and it
> is the reviewers that are not the problem. Christy is defending his
> career and the
> other two seem to not fully understand what the QUMP runs with HadCM3
> are about.
>
> I guess this making these sorts of decisions is what being an editor is
> all
> about. Can you not consult some of your other GRL editors, or the
> principal
> one?
>
> I am assuming that all of the above is just between you and me.
> Some of my emails over the last few years have begun appearing on
> Climate Audit with delays of about 1 hour up to 2 years. I'm only
> joking in this last sentence, but I am being more careful what I
> say in some emails.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
> At 19:23 10/05/2007, you wrote:
> >Thanks Phil,
> >
> >What I am looking for is a comment on the three reviews, particularly
> >whether you think they are fair, and any comments in the reviews you
> think
> >are not fair, or plain wrong.
> >
> >Finally, a comment on what (if anything) you think is new from a GRL
> >perspective; to be published in GRL it has to be one or more of the
> >following, therefore needing rapid publication:
> >
> >Important new science at the forefront of an AGU discipline
> >Innovative research with interdisciplinary/broad geophysical application
> >Instrument or methods manuscript that introduces new techniques with
> >important geophysical applications
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Mark
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: P.JonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk [mailto:P.JonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk]
> >Sent: 10 May 2007 17:51
> >To: Mark New
> >Subject: RE: Advice on paper submitted to GRL
> >
> >
> > Dear Mark,
> > I thought I'd try and look during the HC Review.
> > I didn't realise who was involved - some of the
> > authors were around the Table. So definitely
> > has to be next week! I can guess who the
> > reviewers are !!!
> >
> > Do you want a yes/no response to what you should
> > do - with reasons, or do you want a formalish review?
> > Hopefully the former - is there anything new, are
> > the reviews reasonable etc?
> >
> > Cheers
> > Phil
> >
> >
> >
> > > Dear Phil,
> > >
> > > By next week would be fine, sooner even better!
> > >
> > > I attach the following:
> > >
> > > Version 1: manuscript and reviews
> > >
> > > Version 2: authors letter, response to reviewers, revised manuscript,
> > > reviews.
> > >
> > > Many thanks,
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: P.JonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk [mailto:P.JonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk]
> > >> Sent: 08 May 2007 20:43
> > >> To: Mark New
> > >> Subject: Re: Advice on paper submitted to GRL
> > >> Importance: High
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> Mark,
> > >> I'm in Tarragona at the moment, but will be in Exeter
> > >> tomorrow for the rest of the week (HC review).
> > >> I can look but only next week, if that is soon
> > >> enough.
> > >> I will likely check in at UEA on Sunday, so
> > >> send if timing is OK with you.
> > >>
> > >> There will likely be quite a bit to catch up with
> > >> next week, as MOHC doesn't allow wifi and I doubt
> > >> the hotel will have a connection.
> > >>
> > >> Cheers
> > >> Phil
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Cheers
> > >> Phil
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Phil,
> > >> >
> > >> > I am struggling to make a decision on a paper by Peter Thorne that
> > >> uses
> > >> > the
> > >> > Met Office perturbed physics ensemble to address the
> > >> MSU-Radiosonde-GCM
> > >> > "debate". I wonder if you would mind reading the paper, and the
> > >> reviews
> > >> > (which are by good people) and letting me know whether you think it
> > >> > actually
> > >> > take the science forward significantly?
> > >> >
> > >> > Included below are the authors' statement about the significance of
> > >> the
> > >> > work, and the abstract. If you can look at this, I will send the
> two
> > >> > version1 and 2 of the article, and all the reviewers comments.
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks,
> > >> >
> > >> > Mark
> > >> >
> > >> > --------------------
> > >> >
> > >> > 1. We address the continuing debate over the reality or otherwise
> of a
> > >> > reported discrepancy between climate model and observed behaviour
> in
> > >> > tropospheric temperature trends within the tropics.
> > >> >
> > >> > 2. We show that climate models are highly constrained, and that the
> > >> > discrepancy could arise through observational dataset uncertainties
> /
> > >> and
> > >> > or
> > >> > choice of time period.
> > >> >
> > >> > 3. It implies that a discrepancy is less likely to exist than
> > >> previously
> > >> > reported and therefore climate models are more likely to be grossly
> > >> > adequate
> > >> > within the tropics. It therefore impacts most of the climate
> science
> > >> and
> > >> > adaptation and mitigation communities.
> > >> >
> > >> > Abstract Controversy remains over whether climate models capture
> > >> > observed changes in tropospheric temperature structure,
> particularly
> > >> in
> > >> > the
> > >> > tropics. In this region, theory and climate models predict
> > >> tropospheric
> > >> > amplification of surface temperature perturbations and trends.
> > >> > Observations,
> > >> > although exhibiting amplification of perturbations, show either
> weak
> > >> > amplification or damping of trends over the satellite era. This has
> > >> led
> > >> to
> > >> > significant concerns regarding the reliability of climate models.
> > >> Here,
> > >> we
> > >> > examine whether comparisons of modeled and observed trend
> > >> amplification
> > >> > factors are sensitive to structural uncertainties in both climate
> > >> models
> > >> > and
> > >> > observational datasets, and to temporal sampling uncertainty. When
> > >> > considered in combination, these uncertainties preclude a finding
> of
> > >> > "irreconcilable differences" between modeled and observed
> > >> amplification
> > >> > factors. This conflicts with a recent expert assessment which
> > >> concluded
> > >> > that, "discrepancies within the tropics remain to be resolved".
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.6/795 - Release Date: 09/05/2007
> >15:07
> >
> >
> >No virus found in this outgoing message.
> >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.6/795 - Release Date: 09/05/2007
> >15:07
> >
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich Email p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>


No comments:

Post a Comment