Thursday, May 3, 2012

3769.txt

cc: D�ith� Stone <stonedatXYZxyz.ox.ac.uk>, Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Gabi Hegerl <gabi.hegerlatXYZxyzac.uk>, Peter Stott <stott.peteratXYZxyzglemail.com>, Toru Nozawa <nozawa@nies.go.jp>, Alexey Karpechko <A.KarpechkoatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Michael Wehner <MFWehneratXYZxyz.gov>
date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 10:01:17 +0200 (SAST)
from: D�ith� Stone <daithiatXYZxyzg.uct.ac.za>
subject: Re: Fwd: Information for reviewing Nature Geoscience manuscript
to: Nathan Gillett <Nathan.GillettatXYZxyzgc.ca>

<x-flowed>
Hi Nathan and co.,

So they went ahead and submitted. I see three main comments on this:

- Your one about how it is unsurprising that weather indices provide extra
information. I note that they seem to have judiciously chosen
coefficients in d and e (not f and g though) that give the best result:
in fact they admit doing so.
- Perhaps most importantly, Mariani et alii do not address the question of
whether something is affecting the weather indices. This could be NAT and
ANT forcing. Or it could be Arctic temperatures, because their
correlation does not demonstrate causation (I assume they would claim that
climate models (e.g. barotropic) demostrate the direction, but they're
claiming we should ditch the climate models.) Neither c, d, nor e
preclude a and b.
- What model for significance testing are they using? They say that
ALL_mean's r^2 is significant at the 10% level, but then dismiss it by
saying that they don't actually believe their statistical model. Ours
implicitly takes account of such possibilities as encapsulated in N years
of dynamic climate model simulations.

Other notes:
- Why shouldn't five year means give a realistic picture of variability?
They use five year means anyway, so I can only assume they are okay with
it.
- The relevance of our study is of course skewed toward areas with or near
to stations. This is an issue in terms of interpreting "temperature
variations" as "total polar warming". So if your interest is in uniformly
spatially averaged temperature then there may be an issue. For the Arctic
though, most people live in and care about the well sampled bits (no cares
about the North Pole) so the spatial bias is in effect a perfectly
plausible population/GDP weighting. For Antarctica this is a bit of a
stretch. But as we state in the paper we are attributing "changes" in
polar temperatures, and then assuming that this lets us interpet "changes"
as "warming".

Welcome to 2009!
DA

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Nathan Gillett wrote:

> Hi all,Mariani et al. went ahead and submitted their response to Nature
> Geoscience, so we've now been asked to formulate a response to the paper
> (up to 500 words, no figures) by Jan 15th. I attach a PDF of the Mariani
> et al. paper, and a response which I have quickly drafted. I doubt
> whether this will get far with the referees, but we should make sure we
> properly address all the points raised. Comments or suggestions would be
> welcome.
>
> All the best for the New Year,
>
> Nathan
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: <a.newtonatXYZxyzure.com>
> Date: 2009/1/5
> Subject: Information for reviewing Nature Geoscience manuscript
> NGS-2008-12-01244
> To: nathan.gillettatXYZxyzgc.ca
>
>
> Dear Nathan,
>
> The enclosed manuscript entitled "POLAR WARMING ATTRIBUTION STILL
> PREMATURE" has been submitted to our Correspondence section as a comment
> on your recent paper published in Nature Geoscience. Before proceeding
> further, we would like to offer you the opportunity to respond to the
> letter.
>
> The authors have attached your point-by-point response to their concerns,
> but we would prefer to send a stand-alone response to our referees.
>
> Please could you make your response as brief as you can, and refrain as
> far as possible from reiterating points already made in your paper? (The
> response should be under 500 words in length and must not contain new
> data, or any figures or tables.)
>
> When we receive your response it is possible that we shall send the
> exchange to independent referees for advice. If the referees recommend
> publication of this exchange, you will then have the opportunity to
> revise your response. We will let you know our decision about publication
> in due course. (Further details about this procedure can be found on
> http://www.nature.com/ngeo/guide_authors.html)
>
> I am sure you appreciate that we would like to make a decision about
> publication as soon as possible, so if we do not hear from you within 10
> days of receipt of this we shall assume that you do not wish to comment
> and will make a decision about publication without a reply from you. In
> this event, we shall not be able to consider publication of any response
> from you.
>
> To access the manuscript, instructions and review form, please click on
> the link below.
> [see attached file]
>
>
> From there, simply follow the link to manuscript number
> NGS-2008-12-01244. The first time that you enter the system, please click
> on the 'Referee Instructions' link and then scroll down to the section
> marked 'Correspondence: Criticised Authors'. *Please read this section
> first* as it contains information that should answer any
> questions/uncertainties you might have about using the system.
>
> The review form will rapidly allow you to provide your reply in the
> following areas:
> Remarks to the Editor (which will remain confidential)
> Remarks to the Author (which are transmitted in full)
>
> In the future, you can enter the system by using the link above or by
> logging into the site at http://www.mts-ngs.nature.com, which requires a
> user name and password. If you do not know your user name and password,
> please click on the forgotten password link on the login page and enter
> your full first name and last name. The system will send you an email
> with a new login name and password. You will then be prompted to change
> the password the first time you log in.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> Alicia Newton
>
> Associate Editor
> Nature Geoscience
>
> Nature Publishing Group
> The Macmillan Building
> 4 Crinan Street
> London N1 9XW
> UK
>
> +44 20 7833 4000
>
>
> This email has been sent through the NPG Manuscript Tracking System
> NY-610A-NPG&MTS
>
>
>
> --
> ****************************************************************************
> Dr Nathan Gillett,
> Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis,
> University of Victoria,
> PO Box 3065, STN CSC,
> Victoria, BC, V8W 3V6,
> Canada.
> Tel: (250) 363 8264
> Fax: (250) 363 8247
> Email: Nathan.GillettatXYZxyzgc.ca
>
> ****************************************************************************
>
>

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
MAIL: CSAG, Shell Environmental and Geographical Science Building,
South Lane, Upper Campus, University of Cape Town, Private Bag X3,
Rondebosch, Western Cape, 7701, South Africa
TELEPHONE: +27-21-650-2999 FACSIMILE: +27-21-650-5773
E-MAIL: stonedatXYZxyzg.uct.ac.za
WEBPAGE: http://www.csag.uct.ac.za/~daithi
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
</x-flowed>

No comments:

Post a Comment