Sunday, March 25, 2012


date: Mon Feb 4 16:24:25 2008
from: Phil Jones <>
subject: Re: Incomplete first draft of response to Douglass et al.

A few thoughts on the paper - read whilst travelling home.
It reads well, but I saw Tom covering some sections in red when we were in Boulder.

Several times it could be better to say tropospheric as opposed to atmospheric - the
abstract is one place.
English spellings of modelled and vapour and colour throughout. Some are, some aren't.
You refer to Solomon et al 2007 yet have IPCC 2007 in the ref list.
I'd prefer to refer to the chapters. You do this with Trenberth et al.,
but need to with hegerl et al. I guess you'll get to this.
Could say that DCSP07 is published online.
The start of the second para of the Intro could be better. Didn't like 'Yet'
as the first word.
Top of 10 you had a data 'is' and not 'are'
p15 pt 4, the different realizations of y (nought) (t) is important but probably
needs more explanation. I know its uncertain, but it it is easier to show
this for y (sub m) (t).
p16 say '... trends in an individual modelled and an observed time series...'
Lots of good things said in the final pages.
Happy to go through another version at some point.
At 00:01 26/01/2008, you wrote:

Dear folks,
I am just about to leave for Boulder. I have not yet finished the first draft of our
IJoC paper. It has proved to be quite difficult to write all of this stuff up. It's
tricky to find the right balance between "readability" and technical accuracy,
particularly on some of these statistical issues.
Even though this draft is incomplete, I'm sending you what I've done so far. I'm a
little reluctant to do this, but I won't be back in my office until next Thursday, and
thought that you might appreciate the opportunity to read and critique what I've done so
I still need to complete the final section (Section 7), which will be fairly short, and
will describe the "vertical profile" Figure that Peter and Leo have generated. The
Conclusions section is also non-existent. There are no Figure or Table captions at
present, but by now, you should be intimately familiar with all details of the Figures!
The references also need a little work.
As you will see, I've used footnotes rather liberally. I like folding some of the more
technical information into footnotes, so that the "flow" of the paper isn't disrupted.
Not all of the footnotes may survive. Also, it's quite possible that we may need to
shift some of the information in the main text to Appendices.
There are two more sensitivity tests I'd like to perform. One (which is mentioned in the
text, but not yet completed) involves looking at the sensitivity of the
model-versus-observed "paired trend" tests to use of longer observational data records.
That should be easy to do, and will involve the addition of a few lines of results to
Table 1. The other test is to repeat the model-versus-observed "paired trend" tests and
replace the MODEL adjusted standard errors with the OBSERVED adjusted standard errors.
The reasons for this should be obvious from Figure 3 (model overestimation of the
observed standard error). I don't think this will change our results by much - but it's
a test we need to do.
I will not be able to read my email while I'm in Boulder. If anyone needs to get in
touch with me while I'm gone, my cell phone number is 925-325-0481.
With best regards,
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel: (925) 422-2486
FAX: (925) 422-7675

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

No comments:

Post a Comment