Tuesday, March 27, 2012

2897.txt

date: Thu Oct 7 16:12:40 2004
from: Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: Re: Lack-of-Progress Report
to: Adrian.SimmonsatXYZxyzwf.int

Adrian,
Glad you've found out. We don't appear to have lost more than a week. This sort of
thing
is frustrating.
Cheers
Phil
At 11:44 07/10/2004, you wrote:

Everyone
See below for the confused status of our JGR resubmission.
Adrian
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: 2004JD005306 Decision Letter
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 11:40:12 +0100
From: Adrian Simmons <Adrian.SimmonsatXYZxyzwf.int>
Reply-To: Adrian.SimmonsatXYZxyzwf.int
Organization: ECMWF
To: kpumphreyatXYZxyz.org
References: <1094741403@gems2>
Edotorial Office
JGR-Atmospheres
I should be grateful if you would confirm that processing of my
resubmission of a revised version of the manuscript referred to below is
proceeding satisfactorily.
I resubmitted it electronically on 1 October, and logged out after
receiving the following sequence of messages:
Waiting for Author Approval of Converted Files 2004-10-01 12:10:20
Author Approved Converted Files 2004-10-01 12:21:05
Initial Quality Control Started 2004-10-01 12:21:06
However, despite the above message that converted files had been
approved, when logging in again today to check on progress, I found the
status was "Waiting for Author Aproval of converted files". After
approving a file (again), the status changed directly to
Waiting for Reviewer Assignment 2004-10-07 06:18:49
I notice that the new (combined pdf) file I approved is different than
that originally approved in that it does not now include the courtesy
copy of figures in portrait format with legends attached. However, I am
surprised that I was not notified by email that the combined file had
been changed and required my further approval.
Best regards
Adrian Simmons
jgr-atmospheresatXYZxyz.org wrote:

Manuscript Number: 2004JD005306
Manuscript Title: Comparison of trends and variability in CRU, ERA-40 and NCEP/NCAR
analyses of monthly-mean surface air temperature

Dear Dr. Simmons:

Attached below please find 2 reviews on your above-referenced paper. At least one of
the Reviewers has raised questions and made suggestions for important revisions. Please
consider the Reviewer reports carefully, make the necessary changes in your manuscript
and respond to me, explaining how you have addressed these comments. In your Response
to Reviewer letter, please include a statement confirming that all authors listed on the
manuscript concur with submission in its revised form.

The two reviewers have made some fairly substantial comments on the manner in which your
results are presented and the emphasis that you place on the different aspects of your
work. I am asking for major revisions to your paper, which are concerned more with the
presentation than with the scientific details of your analysis. I agree with Reviewer #1
that your paper should emphasize more strongly the suitability of reanalyses for trend
studies, rather than the comparisons between ERA-40 and NCEP/NCAR, but this would need
some fairly subtle changes (maybe more in the abstract, introduction and conclusions
than in the body of the paper). I will most likely, but not necessarily, ask one of the
reviewers for a new assessment of your revised paper.

The due date for your revised paper is October 9, 2004. If you will be unable to submit
a revised manuscript by October 9, 2004, please notify my office and arrange for an
extension (maximum two weeks). If we do not hear from you by the revision due date,
your manuscript will be considered as withdrawn.

When you are ready to submit your revision, please use the link below.

<[1]http://jgr-atmospheres-submit.agu.org/cgi-bin/main.plex?el=A2Bc4BFBM2A5oLJ4I6A99ddCo
p0U1ug4tsmG9WCngZ>

(NOTE: The link above automatically submits your login name and password. If you wish
to share this link with co-authors or colleagues, please be aware that they will have
access to your entire account for this journal.)

Sincerely,

Steven Pawson
Editor, Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres

-----------Important JGR-Atmospheres Information------------------------------
Submission, Review and Publication Stages Chart
[2]http://www.agu.org/pubs/Author_workflow.pdf
Text Preparation and Formatting Manuscript Preparation
[3]http://www.agu.org/pubs/au_contrib_rev.html
Acceptable Electronic File Formats
[4]http://www.agu.org/pubs/authoring/guides_formats.html
Editorial Style Guide for Authors
[5]http://www.agu.org/pubs/style_guide_intro.html Auxiliary Materials
(Electronic Supplements) [6]http://www.agu.org/pubs/esupp_about.html
Artwork Preparation Guidelines for Preparing Graphics Files
[7]http://www.agu.org/pubs/authoring/guides_graphics.html
Figure FAQ [8]http://www.agu.org/pubs/authoring/figure_faq.html
Prices for Color in AGU Journals
[9]http://www.agu.org/pubs/journal_forms/colorpricing.html
AGU Copyright Transfer Form
[10]http://www.agu.org/pubs/cprt_top.html
Manuscript Status Tool (for manuscripts recently accepted)
[11]http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/ms_status/ms_status.cgi

If you need assistance with file formats and/or color charges please e-mail
jgr_atmospheresatXYZxyz.org (Telicia Collick) and quote your manuscript number.

If you need Adobe Acrobat Reader to download the forms, it is available, free, on the
internet at: [12]http://www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer Comments

Reviewer #1 Evaluations:
Assessment: Category 2
Ranking: Very Good
Annotated Manuscript: No
Reviewer #1(Comments):
This paper examines ERA-40 2-meter temperature analysis by comparing to CRU observation
and NCEP/NCAR reanalysis. The cause of the fictitious trend is further examined by
looking into the analysis guess and the model simulation forced by observed SST.
The paper is acceptable for publication in JGR with minor revisions.
Major Comments:
I value this paper for its effort to analyze how the long term trend in the
analysis is brought about by observation and analysis guess. It is quite convincing
that the analysis trend is a result of bias in analysis guess and observation density.
It is clear that ERA-40 is better than NCEP/NCAR reanalysis in several
respects. However, I do not think the major purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how
good the ERA-40 is compare to some other reanalyses. The important theme should be how
accurately reanalyses can detect long term trend, how reliable they are and how we can
interpret the results. If comparison is the main purpose, I worry about the possibility
of large amount of comparison papers coming out in Journals, which do not contribute
significantly to the advance of atmospheric science.

Apparently, the warming trend is simulated using atmospheric simulation. I am
wondering how much the warming trend is the result of SST and how much is from change in
CO2. The effect of SST is very important since analysis of SST in earlier years is
not as accurate and may results in fictitious trend in SST, which in tern creates
fictitious trend in atmospheric simulation, as well as in the atmospheric analysis. I
wonder what is the effect of SST in understanding the change in analysis increments in
the Southern Hemisphere (Australia and Antarctica). In this regard, the sea ice
analysis also may contribute to the trends in southern hemisphere temperature trend.
It is not clear how much CRU data were used in ERA-40. Since analysis is
compared with CRU data, this point needs to be explained in more detail.
Minor Comments:
The NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis 2 meter temperature may be the value of the 6 hour
prediction. This depends on which field you obtained from CDC. Please confirm with the
data supplier. This does not change the result of the paper, but fair comparison with
ERA-40 may need to be made against ERA-40 background guess.
Is the simulation made in ensemble mode? If so, is there a large spread of
trend in the ensemble members?
Reviewer #2 Evaluations:
Assessment: Category 4
Ranking: Good
Annotated Manuscript: No
Reviewer #2(Comments):
Review of Simmons et al.: Comparison of trends and variability in CRU, ERA40....
General
This article provides considerable information related to intercomparisons of three
important data sets that have been used to discern surface temperature changes. As such
it provides a valuable contribution to furthering our understanding of how climate has
varied and changed. It does suffer however, from a rather sloppy description of what
is being intercompared and related inferences regarding the causes of the differences
among the data sets. If the authors could address these issues I would recommend
publication, but I emphasize to the editor, that as written, this article it not very
effective in communication what was actually compared.
Specific Comments
Abstract --- There is no mention in the abstract of the confounding nature of the
intercomparisons using ERA40 due to the inclusion of screen level temperatures in
calculating surface temperatures and soil moisture. This is a major issue which the
authors provide some 'hand-waving' arguments as to why they believe this is not a major
issues, but since their arguments are not quantitative they are subject to skepticism.
For this reason this should be mentioned in the Abstract to temper definitive
conclusions related to the interpretation of the results of this work.
Abstract and elsewhere --- the annoying use of terms like 'increments' appears without
any definition of what the authors are talking about appears here and elsewhere in the
text. This needs correction.
Abstract and elsewhere --- another undefined term "ERA-40 analyses" is used in the
abstract and somehow the reader is suppose to understand how this differs from the
ERA-40 data assimilation without formal definitions. There is some attempt, although as
a reader I feel I am guessing, to define what ERA-40 analyses means later in the article
as related to running the model with greenhouse gas forcing, but the description is
brief, and most readers would need to fully understand that this is what ERA-40 analyses
mean, because the description does not seem consistent with the title ERA-40 analyses.
Abstract ---- The simulation is described as matching quite well the CRUTEM2v data, but
does not describe the time period.
Overall --- There are some major question unaddressed by this analysis that I expect
should have been tackled. For example, there is little attention in the text to day
versus night temperature changes in the ERA-40 versus observational data sets. Although
the Jones et al data do not resolve the day-night temperatures others data sets do and
it seems rather fundamental to helping resolve the causes of any differences. The
nighttime temperatures in many respects are divorced from the temperatures at the so
called level 40 or 850 hPa temperatures and need to be addressed to confirm some the
inferences the authors make regarding the changes in temperature throughout the
planetary boundary layer in the ERA-40 as related to the interpretation of the Cai and
Kalnay results.
Page 4 --- 2nd paragraph --- not clear as to what is being compared as there is not
quantitative estimate as to the impact of using the screen level temperatures in the
estimate of soil temperature and moisture. How can the authors be certain that this
does not have a major impact on screen temperatures. I would have expected some
quantitative experiments to show this is of minor importance.
Page 5 3rd paragraph --- Definitions lacking as to background forecasts and simulations.
Page 5 last paragraph --- Again it is confusing to use the term analysed monthly
anomalies and ERA-40 analyeses --- what's the difference. Sloppy use of the term
analysed.
Page 5 last sentence --- This is not true for the CRU data and all other observation
data sets based on non synoptic data!
Page 7 3rd paragraph --- Seems like a lot of hand waving here, without no supporting
quantitative analysis.
Page 8 last sentence --- Again the reader is left wondering what is being discussed
(Analyses or simulations) and then what the difference is between the two.
Page 9 2nd paragraph --- There is never an rationale provided as to why the authors
choose to consider trends since 1979. I think I know why, but why make the reader
guess?
Page 11 1st paragraph --- Again no definition of what a background forecast of the data
assimilation. It seems as if this paper was written for colleagues within the authors
respective branches or Divisions and not the atmos sci community.
Page 18 3rd paragraph --- The hand waving argument here is that since boundary layer
temp trends in ERA-40 are similar after 1979 this implies the Kalnay & Cai results
conclusions are in doubt. Again, however, the authors need to show that the use of the
2m screen temps for the soil moisture and temp do not effect much of the boundary layer
trends. Day/night differences in trends may be key, but this is not smoking gun because
greenhouse gas increases have been shown to lead to differential day night temp trends.

--
--------------------------------------------------
Adrian Simmons
Head of Data Division
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
Head of Data Division
European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts
Shinfield Park, Reading, RG2 9AX, UK
Phone: +44 118 949 9700
Fax: +44 118 986 9450
--------------------------------------------------

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