date: Mon, 14 May 2007 12:35:36 +0100 from: "Mark New" subject: RE: Advice on paper submitted to GRL to: "'Phil Jones'" Phil, Thanks for this - gives me some guidance and I can now go ahead and think through a decision. These emails will not go any further. Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] > Sent: 14 May 2007 11:54 > To: Mark New > Subject: RE: Advice on paper submitted to GRL > > > Mark, > This is a difficult one. I began by reading the paper (v2) and then > the comments on this version. I also briefly looked at the responses > the authors had made to v1. > > The first issue that struck me was that the paper was too long for > GRL, but your unit calculation seems to indicate it will fit.I have > noticed > many GRL papers going over the old 4 page limit ! > > There seem 2 issues related to the paper, firstly their usage of > the various MSU/sonde series (which rev 1 takes issue with) and second > the issue of the model uncertainties (and the use of the QUMP > simulations to address that). > > Reviewers 2 and 3 clearly don't understand what the authors have done > wrt this second issue. The paper is NOT an extension of Santer et al. > (2005, 2006), as it doesn't relate to inter-model uncertainty, but to > intra-model uncertainty - with just the one model (HadCM3). I can't see > how the authors could have made it clearer what they have done. Maybe > if they went for JGR they would have more time to explain - say which > parameterizations were perturbed etc. > > The work is clearly novel enough for GRL - it is clearly too novel for > Rev 3. > > Rev 2 isn't that up with the upper air datasets when he/she suggests > referring to Angell/Oort and Prabhakara. These datasets were dismissed > in the CCSP report - which I was on the review panel for, by the way. > > So, in summary so far, Rev 2 and 3 are not aware of the way climate > modelling is going, haven't understood the paper and are not that aware > of what are good or bad upper air datasets. > > The more difficult review is #1 (Christy). He is saying the paper can > be > published (and he likes the way some aspects are illustrated), but he > wants his data and his interpretation of it to come to the fore. > > His review contains a number of inaccuracies: > > 1. There was warming before 1979. All this controversy wouldn't > have happened if the satellite record had started in 1975. There was a > climate jump in 1976/77 and this is alluded to in the AR4 Chapter > on Obs (you can download all the chapters now by the way). > There was also some warming before this at the global surface > and in HadAT2 which goes back to 1958. > > 2. There are other MSU analyses (Vinnikov and Grody, UMd and > also Zou et al by NOAA). These don't produce a 2LT series like > UAH and RSS, but for Ch 2 they get more warming than either > UAH and RSS - Zou et al is for a later period from 1987, but this > does include the problematic period Christy goes on about in 1992. > > These datasets are clearly not one of the 8 datasets that Christy et al > (2007) refer to. > > 3. Christy shouldn't refer to yet to be submitted papers. > > 4. He also shouldn't say assumed anthropogenic warming as that is > peripheral to the arguments in the paper. > > 5. You can't use Reanalyses - as they have their own problems. They are > better after 1987, OK for some things from 1979, but not trends. This is > concluded in the IPCC Chapter as well. > > 6. My own view of all this, is that it is the sondes that are likely > wrong, > especially in the tropics. There is a mixture at some sites of day and > night launches and these require different adjustments. RSS is about > right, as it agrees with the surface. The latter just cannot be that > wrong > over the period from 1979. There is a lot more going into the surface > data than the sondes. The surface isn't an issue raised in the paper > though. > > Going with my thought of suggesting this should go to JGR, where they > can expand on the arguments isn't going to get over the Christy review. > He > will make the same points. > > I'm probably biased but my own view is that the paper is probably OK, > and it > is the reviewers that are not the problem. Christy is defending his > career and the > other two seem to not fully understand what the QUMP runs with HadCM3 > are about. > > I guess this making these sorts of decisions is what being an editor is > all > about. Can you not consult some of your other GRL editors, or the > principal > one? > > I am assuming that all of the above is just between you and me. > Some of my emails over the last few years have begun appearing on > Climate Audit with delays of about 1 hour up to 2 years. I'm only > joking in this last sentence, but I am being more careful what I > say in some emails. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 19:23 10/05/2007, you wrote: > >Thanks Phil, > > > >What I am looking for is a comment on the three reviews, particularly > >whether you think they are fair, and any comments in the reviews you > think > >are not fair, or plain wrong. > > > >Finally, a comment on what (if anything) you think is new from a GRL > >perspective; to be published in GRL it has to be one or more of the > >following, therefore needing rapid publication: > > > >Important new science at the forefront of an AGU discipline > >Innovative research with interdisciplinary/broad geophysical application > >Instrument or methods manuscript that introduces new techniques with > >important geophysical applications > > > >Thanks, > > > >Mark > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] > >Sent: 10 May 2007 17:51 > >To: Mark New > >Subject: RE: Advice on paper submitted to GRL > > > > > > Dear Mark, > > I thought I'd try and look during the HC Review. > > I didn't realise who was involved - some of the > > authors were around the Table. So definitely > > has to be next week! I can guess who the > > reviewers are !!! > > > > Do you want a yes/no response to what you should > > do - with reasons, or do you want a formalish review? > > Hopefully the former - is there anything new, are > > the reviews reasonable etc? > > > > Cheers > > Phil > > > > > > > > > Dear Phil, > > > > > > By next week would be fine, sooner even better! > > > > > > I attach the following: > > > > > > Version 1: manuscript and reviews > > > > > > Version 2: authors letter, response to reviewers, revised manuscript, > > > reviews. > > > > > > Many thanks, > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] > > >> Sent: 08 May 2007 20:43 > > >> To: Mark New > > >> Subject: Re: Advice on paper submitted to GRL > > >> Importance: High > > >> > > >> > > > >> Mark, > > >> I'm in Tarragona at the moment, but will be in Exeter > > >> tomorrow for the rest of the week (HC review). > > >> I can look but only next week, if that is soon > > >> enough. > > >> I will likely check in at UEA on Sunday, so > > >> send if timing is OK with you. > > >> > > >> There will likely be quite a bit to catch up with > > >> next week, as MOHC doesn't allow wifi and I doubt > > >> the hotel will have a connection. > > >> > > >> Cheers > > >> Phil > > >> > > >> > > >> Cheers > > >> Phil > > >> > > >> > > >> Phil, > > >> > > > >> > I am struggling to make a decision on a paper by Peter Thorne that > > >> uses > > >> > the > > >> > Met Office perturbed physics ensemble to address the > > >> MSU-Radiosonde-GCM > > >> > "debate". I wonder if you would mind reading the paper, and the > > >> reviews > > >> > (which are by good people) and letting me know whether you think it > > >> > actually > > >> > take the science forward significantly? > > >> > > > >> > Included below are the authors' statement about the significance of > > >> the > > >> > work, and the abstract. If you can look at this, I will send the > two > > >> > version1 and 2 of the article, and all the reviewers comments. > > >> > > > >> > Thanks, > > >> > > > >> > Mark > > >> > > > >> > -------------------- > > >> > > > >> > 1. We address the continuing debate over the reality or otherwise > of a > > >> > reported discrepancy between climate model and observed behaviour > in > > >> > tropospheric temperature trends within the tropics. > > >> > > > >> > 2. We show that climate models are highly constrained, and that the > > >> > discrepancy could arise through observational dataset uncertainties > / > > >> and > > >> > or > > >> > choice of time period. > > >> > > > >> > 3. It implies that a discrepancy is less likely to exist than > > >> previously > > >> > reported and therefore climate models are more likely to be grossly > > >> > adequate > > >> > within the tropics. It therefore impacts most of the climate > science > > >> and > > >> > adaptation and mitigation communities. > > >> > > > >> > Abstract Controversy remains over whether climate models capture > > >> > observed changes in tropospheric temperature structure, > particularly > > >> in > > >> > the > > >> > tropics. In this region, theory and climate models predict > > >> tropospheric > > >> > amplification of surface temperature perturbations and trends. > > >> > Observations, > > >> > although exhibiting amplification of perturbations, show either > weak > > >> > amplification or damping of trends over the satellite era. This has > > >> led > > >> to > > >> > significant concerns regarding the reliability of climate models. > > >> Here, > > >> we > > >> > examine whether comparisons of modeled and observed trend > > >> amplification > > >> > factors are sensitive to structural uncertainties in both climate > > >> models > > >> > and > > >> > observational datasets, and to temporal sampling uncertainty. When > > >> > considered in combination, these uncertainties preclude a finding > of > > >> > "irreconcilable differences" between modeled and observed > > >> amplification > > >> > factors. This conflicts with a recent expert assessment which > > >> concluded > > >> > that, "discrepancies within the tropics remain to be resolved". > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >No virus found in this incoming message. > >Checked by AVG Free Edition. > >Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.6/795 - Release Date: 09/05/2007 > >15:07 > > > > > >No virus found in this outgoing message. > >Checked by AVG Free Edition. > >Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.6/795 - Release Date: 09/05/2007 > >15:07 > > > > 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.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- >