Sunday, May 13, 2012

4206.txt

date: Wed Mar 18 15:45:16 2009
from: Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: RE: Weather - Decision on Manuscript ID WEA-09-0001.R3
to: Weather - UK <weatheratXYZxyzey.com>

Alex,
So Bob is not talking to me now!
Can you ask him some more questions? He has not responded to my comments
in the email. I hope you can get some quick responses as I don't want this to
drag on and on. They can be simple one word responses to a) and b).
a) does he accept that Heathrow Airport has not moved its site - in other words the
reviewer was wrong?
b) that LWC has only moved once - which was stated, so the reviewer is again wrong.
These are important points!
c) The discussion of the results is interesting but it could be organised rather better.
No serious attempt has been made to discuss the geographical aspects of the UHI and would
no doubt be very interesting to 'Weather' readers. If the authors think this outside their
remit, and/or that they think it has been done adequately by Chandler, then it would be
helpful simply to say so.
This is what the reviewer said (all these are the 3rd reviewer). How does this reconcile
with
removing all the sites except WIS, ROTH and SJP? It is impossible to discuss any
geographical
aspects of the UHI without data. I will say it is outside the remit.
The paper would be a lot poorer without the other sites, as people would just say I've
cherrypicked the sites that show the effect. What about LHR, Kew, LWC? I will probably
rewrite the paper, but I want it to include all the sites, just to show that they have
been looked at.
I will say why they have been included and what is wrong with them, but they need to be
there.
I just want to check that Bob is OK with this - subject to a re-review?
d) Finally I don't see that using a degree sign instead is deg C is a serious flaw.
How else can temperature differences be expressed except as in degrees C?
AMS uses the degree sign, it is just a preference, but it allows people
to use K. I thought this was too far for Weather readers. I put deg C in a paper to
a journal a few years ago and they were changed to the degree sign.
I have to say I cannot believe that Bob has called this a serious flaw.
I would like an answer to a, b and c though.

d is not a serious flaw at all - it is just editorial style. I will change it to
what you want.
The attached was sent to me by Bob. Word says it is owned by Dennis Wheeler.
I wasn't looking to see who owned it. Word just told me, when I opened it.

I thought it was Dennis Wheeler anyway, as we've worked together on a paper a few years
ago.
Cheers
Phil
At 15:06 18/03/2009, you wrote:

Dear Phil

Apologies for not getting back to you sooner. The proofs of this month's Weather have
been going to press and absorbing much of my time. Bob has got back to me with his
responses to your concerns. He asked me to let you know that the Major Revision verdict
still stands. He states that

' A large proportion of all the reviewers' comments were not acted on (which is why the
process was extended); amongst the more trivial were a request to amplify a reference to
'adiabats' (not done) - and a remark that you 'prefer' 'warmer temperatures' to 'higher
temperatures'. You may prefer it - but it is wrong, certainly in a scientific paper. And
use of �C for temperature differences is most definitely wrong. Such flaws do not
encourage reviewers to comment favourably even if the data is entirely faultless. A fair
amount of the reason for 'major revision' is, therefore, just to get the article much
better presented.

It also does not read as if the other sites are there for 'completeness'; they degrade
the integrity of the data from the acceptable sites (WIS, ROTH and SJP). Why is the
paper poorer if peripheral data is excluded? Since that data includes an acknowledged
(highly) non-standard site, it must be better without it. These points have also been
made in review.

Therefore, as previously advised, the paper needs revision in line with the comments
made in the reviews, and will not be reconsidered unless this is done

I apologise that the initial review information was incomplete which caused much of the
misunderstandings during the review process. This was due to technical glitch in the
system that we will look out for in future. I am concerned though that you were able to
ascertain who was the reviewer on the paper. As I am sure you appreciate, the
peer-review system is reliant on the confidentiality of the reviewer. Are you able to
let me know how you knew Dennis Wheeler was one of the reviewers?

Best wishes,

Alex

Alexandra Owen
Associate Journals Editor
John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Southern Gate
Chichester
West Sussex
PO19 8SQ, UK
Tel:+44 1243770585
Fax:+44 1243770450
E-mail: alowenatXYZxyzey.com

NEW ONLINE! WIREs Climate Change website: [1]www.wiley.com/wires



-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Jones [[2]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: 16 March 2009 17:00
To: Weather - UK
Subject: Re: Weather - Decision on Manuscript ID WEA-09-0001.R3

Bob,
I've not done anything as I was waiting for a response to this email.
If you want me to resubmit saying all this in a response then let me know.

Cheers
Phil

Bob,
I must say I am getting fed up with your extra reviews. This last one
hasn't read the paper.

The whole point of the paper is the analysis of SJP, ROTH and WIS.
The main conclusions come from these three sites.

The other sites are included for completeness.

I have looked at the Tyrrell letter and Moffitt's response. Moffitt's
analysis wasn't flawed and his response wasn't
arrogant. Tyrrell's letter is
p348 in 1972 and the response is on p42 in 1973. Moffitt's response seems
quite restrained and quite logical. We reproduced his results when ROTH was
compared with KEW.

The whole point is that the entire ROTH comparisons with SJP are supported
by WIS. Also the entire ROTH record is one of the three stations that constitute
the Central England temperature record. So there is nothing to doubt in
the ROTH record, whatsoever. It is totally supported by WIS, and has been
looked at in detail by Manley and others putting the updates of CET together.

The Hampstead record is not digitally available. It is in the 30-year books (for
1931-60) but is less complete than SJP and CAM for 1901-30 (where it only
has 1911-30).

It is only possible to look at spatial aspects of the UHI across London
with long time series that are digitally available. We have used these in this
paper. There aren't any others. We've been through the BADC archives,
which allow us access to the Met Office database. Geographical
aspects of the UHI can't be discussed without data. We make allusions based
on LHR and Kew, but that is all that can be done. Another point of the
paper is that the UHI doesn't change since 1901 for SJP and has appeared
to reach a limit for LHR.

Hunt (2007) makes no mention of a site change at LWC in 2002. It isn't
evident in the plots, shown in the paper, nor in others we have produced.
No move is mentioned in the attached produced by John Prior (Met Office)
in 2008. The site is non standard, but we stated that.

There is no mention of a move at Camden Square in 1957 in the Met Office
book with the 1931-60 averages in.

As for Heathrow, the attached gives the site history. The anemometer moves
several times, but there is no indication of the thermometer moving. Anyway,
Heathrow is peripheral to the paper, which is about SJP, ROTH and WIS.

I have answered all these in the comments above. Do you want me to
strip down the paper to just SJP, ROTH and WIS? The paper would be a lot
worse if I were to do this.

I hope you will reply fairly quickly.

Cheers
Phil



At 12:41 09/03/2009, weatheratXYZxyzey.co.uk wrote:
>09-Mar-2009
>
>Dear Professor Jones,
>
>I thought it best to send this paper to a third independent reviewer
>and accept any recommendation then made. The comments of the reviewer
>are included at the bottom of this letter.
>
>A revised version of your manuscript that takes into account the
>comments of the reviewers and mine from my earlier letter will be
>reconsidered for publication. Please note that submitting a revision of
>your manuscript does not guarantee eventual acceptance, and that your
>revision will be subject to re-review before a decision is rendered.
>
>You can upload your revised manuscript and submit it through your
>Author Center. Log into [3]http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/weather and
>enter your Author Center, where you will find your manuscript title
>listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions".
>
>When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to
>the comments made by the reviewers in the space provided. You can use
>this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript.
>
>IMPORTANT: Please make sure you closely follow the instructions for
>acceptable files. When submitting (uploading) your revised manuscript,
>please delete the file(s) that you wish to replace and then upload the
>revised file(s).
>
>Please remember that the publishers will not accept a manuscript unless
>accompanied by the Copyright Transfer Agreement. Please go to:
>[4]http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/homepages/113388511/nscta.pdf
>
>The Copyright Transfer Form and the Permissions Form should be scanned
>and uploaded with your submission to Manuscript Central, designated as
>"Supplemental Material not for review". If you do not have access to a
>scanner, further instructions will be provided upon the acceptance of
>your paper. Forms should not be sent to the editorial office.
>
>
>Yours sincerely,
>
>Mr. BOB PRICHARD
>Editor, Weather
>weather@wiley.co.uk
>
>
>Reviewer's Comments to Author:
>
>I am concerned that not enough attention has been paid to the effects
>on temperature régimes of changes in site and site characteristics.
>These have certainly been alluded to, but no attempt has been made to
>quantify them. I suspect there are several additional site changes that
>the authors may not be aware of ...
>certainly no mention has been made of them (eg LWC 2002 approx, Camden
>Square 1957, Heathrow several times). Without proper treatment of these
>site changes, the rest of the analysis becomes questionable.
>
>I think using LWC data in this sort of study is inadmissable. Data
>recorded on an asphalted rooftop site with air-conditioning ducts
>nearby brings a range of additional variables.
>
>Although it does not affect the post-1930 analysis, the several
>references to the Moffitt article are worrying, in particular the
>quotation from an unpublished and no-longer-available letter. Moffitt's
>analysis was flawed; this was pointed out by Tyrrell in the Aug 1972
>edition of 'Weather', but Tyrrell's objections were arrogantly
>dismissed by Moffitt a few months later (about March 1973, I think).
>Manuscript copies of daily temperature records at the two Rothamsted
>sites between 1915 and
>1927 actually show substantial differences - as one would expect
>between a walled garden on the fringe of the town and an open field
>site well outside the built-up area.
>
>Further, I'm slightly surprised that one inner London site which has
>not moved at all since it was set up in 1909 has not been utilised.
>Hampstead, that is.
>
>The discussion of the results is interesting but it could be organised
>rather better. No serious attempt has been made to discuss the
>geographical aspects of the UHI and would no doubt be very interesting
>to 'Weather' readers.
>If the authors think this outside their remit, and/or that they think
>it has been done adequately by Chandler, then it would be helpful
>simply to say so.

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


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