Monday, May 7, 2012


cc: Anders <>,,,,,,
date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 13:35:09 +0000
from: Nanne Weber <>
subject: Re: Another draft -- hopefully ready for submission
to: Martin Juckes <>

Hi Martin,

thanks a lot for the new draft. I have a number of smaller comments,
as indicated in the Latex file (marked by %CNANNE....%CENDNANNE, so
that you should be able to find them easily).

Also some bigger comments:
1) I think that we should avoid entering into unresolved
disputes (unless we really want to present something new as in
section 4). Otherwise it might provoke endless comments and
emails, similar to what Anders is referring to.
Therefore, I propose to shorten the first para of section 2.8, just
stating the two views (of Storch et al and Mann et al) and noting that
the debate is ongoing (see text in Latex file).
2) I found the review of MMetc. in section 3 quite accurate, but
agree with Anders that we should be careful here.
As another example of what can be provoked I refer to the just
submitted paper of Burger and Cubasch on the CPD website, which
has already attracted a number of heated+lengthy+technical
comments from 1 referee, plus counter-comments
3) table 1 in section 3 is simply confusing to me. I propose to
a) order the data according to geographical location
b) add references that are still missing, especially for the Hegerl
et al data (paper not published yet) and Esper et al (original
paper does not contain data soure references)
c) explain in text that 2 versions of same treering record (Tornetraesk,
Taymir, Urals) mostly differ in treatment of long timescales
Example reshuffled table is attached
4) section 4 is really nice, concise and clear in its goals.
However, I got lost in the statistics. I have put a lot of dumb
questions in the text where I got lost. Hope that you can clarify these.
After all, we are trying to reach a general readership.
5) Figures: could you do 6+7 with the same vertical scale? I had to look
hard for the bars in Fig. 6, maybe replace them with something more
solid (filled dots?). The graphs would be better visible if you would
place the coloring code in the caption instead of in the figure.
Fig. 8: it seems more relevant to me to give the autocorrelation
for lags of 0-30 yrs (about), as these can be reliably estimated
and just discuss some of the features for longer lags in the text (maybe
even the Appendix).

Best, Nanne


Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\table1_mitrie.pdf"

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\mitrie1.tex"

No comments:

Post a Comment