cc: David Thompson <davetatXYZxyzos.colostate.edu>, Mike Wallace <wallaceatXYZxyzos.washington.edu>
date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:22:40 +0000
from: John Kennedy <john.kennedyatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk>
subject: Re: Fwd: Decision on Nature manuscript 2008-01-00939
to: Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
My computer's busy working out the numbers for Figure 4 back to 1920, so
I should have them soon.
I'll be around next week to review any updates to the paper.
Phil - you bet right. I spoke to Dick at the Ocean Sciences meeting and
he is looking at ways of correcting the SST data back to the 1940s. He
didn't seem to be too far along.
On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 13:52 +0000, Phil Jones wrote:
> They seem pretty good - one signed, one wanting a little
> clarification, and one wanting lots more. Glad to hear that Nature
> aren't placing too much on Rev 3. We'll obviously be looking at the
> implications along the lines suggested, but they are all things for
> the future.
> To do them requires the corrected sequence - and we won't have
> that for a while!
> The overall trend of T won't change that much as the 1940s are in
> the middle of the 20th century.
> You could also infer that aerosol forcing would be smaller after
> adjustment, if just based on global mean T.
> I'd like to keep COWL, and if the notation could be easier then do
> that. Is COWL just NAM, or does it include the SAM as well?
> Can't think of much more to say at the moment. I'm away after
> today until April 7. Off to a paleo-ENSO meeting in Tahiti - someone
> has to go! I should have email contact so should be able to look at
> the revised version.
> If for some reason I can't connect, then I'll be in CRU April 7.
> Happy though for you to send off before I'm back.
> So, congrats etc. I guess it will go back to some of the revs, so try
> to placate 3 a bit. Getting resources to do the adjustment will be
> ensured once the paper comes out. It might get done quicker.
> I bet Dick Reynolds is currently looking at the 1940s in the NCDC
> At 13:35 26/03/2008, David Thompson wrote:
> > Mike, John, Phil,
> > I (finally) received the reviews from Nature (they are attached
> > below). We have 'preliminary' acceptance. I don't want to count my
> > chickens before they hatch (particularly with Nature), but my gut
> > feeling is that with a few tweaks the paper will be acceptable.
> > The
> > only truly negative comment is from Rev 3, who feels that the
> > result
> > isn't particularly important. But from the editors letter (and
> > from
> > some offline discussions with the editor), I don't think Nature
> > shares that view. That said, it might be worth adding a paragraph
> > that clarifies just why the result matters.
> > My plan is to make 3 substantial changes:
> > 1. to clarify why the result matters (1 paragraph ).
> > 2. to clarify the SST adjustment method (Susan Solomon thought the
> > text on the SST adjustments was hard to follow)
> > 3. to expand Fig 4 back to 1920
> > My other changes will be editorial. (I considered dropping the
> > COWL
> > methodology. But in hindsight I think it's worth keeping.)
> > 2 quick questions...
> > 1. My goal is to send the revised version to everyone during the
> > first half of next week. Will it work for everyone to review the
> > paper at some point during the second half of next week?
> > 2. Are there are any major changes you thought of during the last
> > couple months that you'd like me to address? If so, please let me
> > know and I'll fold them into the first round of edits.
> > Thanks,
> > Dave
John Kennedy Climate Monitoring and Research Scientist
Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB
Tel: +44 (0)1392 885105 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681
E-mail: john.kennedyatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk
Global climate data sets are available from http://www.hadobs.org