Tuesday, March 27, 2012


date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:35:08 +0100
from: Lisette Klok <e.j.klokatXYZxyzs.uu.nl>
subject: Re: my paper
to: Keith Briffa <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>

Dear Keith,

We have read the review. Also to us the criticism is not always
clear. However, we will revise some parts of the article and I will
send the revised article to John Matthews next week.


Lisette Klok

>I would like you and your co=author to read the very brief review
>below. I have failed o produce
>another. Please give me your opinion. Part of my problem is that
>this review is specialised in
>some ways that I am not qualified to assess. Unfortunately , while
>it also states that the paper should be published it is not clear
>what are substantive criticisms and what are "opinions" . Also the
>remarks about the disorganized style of a section of the paper are
>not too helpful without some details. I therefore really wanted
>another qualified and perhaps more detailed opinion. It is not fair
>to continue trying to get other reviews by now. Hence , I suggest
>you do a revision as you see fit and send a detailed response to
>these points to John Matthews directly , who should have handled
>this in the first place(!) - please do not quote me on that. - Also
>send the revised manuscript and top copies of Figures as the paper
>is now officially "accepted subject to satisfactory modifications"
>that will be checked by John.
>I can only apologize again for all this - but your paper and one
>other glacier paper have been very difficult to get reviewed
>properly. Please forgive us .
>best wishes
>Review of:
>Klok and Oerlemans
>Submitted to The Holocene
>The paper says (p. 3) that a "climate signal" can be extracted from a
>glacier length record. However, the "climate signal" is obviously a
>mass balance history or a reconstruction of equilibrium line
>altitude (ELA). This make me wonder if we are really talking about a
>"climate signal" or "climate history". I would expect something about
>temperature and precipitation here.
>The median elevation of a glacier (p. 3) according to Manley (1959)
>is not the real median. The simple methods to reconstruct ELA
>were never intended to consider or include response time. There are
>certainly more methods than listed here, e.g. see Benn and Lehmkuhl
>The author admits that a numerical flowline model (p. 3) would be
>best but says that their aim is to develop a simple "analytical"
>model that should be more applicable. I am not sure what they mean
>with "analytical". Other terminology is a problem. For example, they
>define "climate sensitivity" in terms of the change in glacier length
>with a change in the ELA, while this term is already well understood
>by climate modellers. Equations (1) and (2) look quite scientific but
>they don't really express much more than the fact that almost any
>phenomenon can be described by a Taylor series, truncated after the
>first term.
>I have real problems calculating time derivatives with fitted
>polynomials and filtered data (p. 6).
>On p. 7 and p. 11 they cite an non-existent publication (Oerlemans,
>2001) which appears to provide important background.
>On p. 8, nu (a Greek letter that I can't print in my mail program) is
>defined as a ratio of mean glacier thickness to glacier length but is
>taken as zero on p. 9. How can that be?
>I can't help thinking that the authors make a bit of a mystery about
>their "analytical" model. A simple conceptual relation between
>glacier length change and change of ELA was proposed by Callendar
>(1950). As this relation includes two different glacier widths (at
>the snout and at the ELA) and slope at the ELA it is a reasonably
>sophisticated predecessor of their model. The authors should at least
>reference Callendar's model.
>The approach is interesting and certainly deserves publication in the
>Holocene but I don't find this a very reader-friendly paper. Pages
>12-17 seem very discursive and approach is rather unsystematic. The
>authors should tighten up the text and even consider changes of
>Benn, D. I. and F. Lehmkuhl. 2000. Mass balance and equilibrium-line
>altitudes of glaciers in high-mountain environments. Quaternary
>International 65/66, 15-29.
>Callendar, G. S. 1950. Note on the relation between the height of
>the firn line and dimensions of a glacier. Journal of Glaciology
>1(8), 459-461.
>At 11:42 AM 2/27/02 +0100, you wrote:
>>I will wait for some more time.
>>>I am working to sort out the reviews on this paper. I have to say
>>>that I have had genuine hell with one reviewer who was not
>>>positive - to an extent that I considered it important for you to
>>>at least address their concerns. HOWEVER, these concerns were not
>>>made officially in a form that I could communicate specifically to
>>>you . The reviewer then kept me waiting for a long time for
>>>written confirmation and specification of their concerns , and I
>>>have been pressing hard to get these. I am trying to resolve the
>>>situation without going to a third referee (that I should have
>>>done before ). I will continue to try to resolve this very shortly.
>>>At 09:21 AM 2/18/02 +0100, you wrote:
>>>>Dear Keith Briffa,
>>>>To remind you:
>>>>Have the reviewers already responded?
>>>>Best wishes,
>>>>Lisette Klok
>>>>Lisette Klok
>>>>Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research,
>>>>Utrecht University
>>>>Princetonplein 5
>>>>3584 CC Utrecht
>>>>the Netherlands
>>>>tel: ++31 30 2535781
>>>>fax: ++31 30 2543163
>>>Professor Keith Briffa,
>>>Climatic Research Unit
>>>University of East Anglia
>>>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>>>Phone: +44-1603-593909
>>>Fax: +44-1603-507784
>>Lisette Klok
>>Princetonplein 5
>>3584 CC Utrecht
>>tel: 030-2535781
>>fax: 030-2543163
>Professor Keith Briffa,
>Climatic Research Unit
>University of East Anglia
>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>Phone: +44-1603-593909
>Fax: +44-1603-507784


Lisette Klok
Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research,
Utrecht University
Princetonplein 5
3584 CC Utrecht
the Netherlands
tel: ++31 30 2535781
fax: ++31 30 2543163

No comments:

Post a Comment