cc: hegerl@duke.edu, esper@wsl.ch, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, m.allen1@physics.ox.ac.uk, weber@knmi.nl, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:35:39 +0100 from: Martin Juckes subject: Re: Mitrie to: Anders Moberg Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by balin.rl.ac.uk id l7UFZiNe012479 Hello, attached is a draft updated manuscript, plus a draft reply to the editor. I've used most of Anders' suggestions (see below). There is one `to do', but that will now have to wait until next week -- I'll be away at a conference. Let me know what you think, cheers, Martin On Monday 27 August 2007 16:28, Anders Moberg wrote: > Dear Martin and all others, > > I have some comments to your reply outline and the manuscript (the > version dated 10 July). > > p.2. HadCRUT2v is from Jones and Moberg (2003), so delete the reference > to Jones et al. (2001) here. > Done > p.6-7. A main point in von Storch et al. (2004) is that they claim that > MBH1999 under-estimates CENTENNIAL variability (or more loosely > 'low-frequent' variability). This should be pointed out here. They don't > really investigate variance across all frequencies. > Done > Moreover, the sentence "The debate is ongoing" needs a better selection > of references. As the section starts with referring to von Storch et al. > (2004), it is not relevant to refer to papers published before 2004 as > part of the "ongoing debate". Delete the references to Mann et al. > 2003a,b and Soon et al 2003 here. More relevant references are e.g. > Esper et al. 2005, Rutherford et al. 2005, Burger and Cubasch 2005, von > Storch et al. 2006 (Science 312, p.529; Response to Comment on...) and > Mann et al. 2007 (a new paper which we definitely should refer to - > Mann, Rutherford, Wahl, Ammann: Robustness of proxy-based climate field > reconstruction methods, JGR-Atmospheres, 112, D12109, > doi:10.1029/2006JD008272). > Done > p.9. Re the 'extrapolation argument' and our words "It is possible, > however, that this question is not relevant ... OER2005 suggest that > ...": I believe your point here is that OER2005 is not affected by the > problem of statistical calibration of proxy-data time-series against > instrumental data. Thus, as OER2005 together with the instrumental data > suggest that the instrumental period covers the entire range of NH temps > in the last millennium, then there should be no problem with > extrapolation "outside the range experienced during the calibration > period" with proxy data. I think you should underscore that OER2005 is > indeed not affected by the statistical calibration problem, but this > itself does not imply that there is no extrapolation problem associated > with traditional proxy data. OER2005 is instead affected by OTHER > problems, such as an assumption that the glacier advance/retreat is > solely governed by temperature and not affected by precipitation (which > is a simplification of reality). Burger does seem to think that we do > not understand that we have a proxy data problem here. We do understand > this - could you just stress a bit more clear what you actually mean > with your sentence here? > I've reworded it to tie in more closely with the Burger and Cubasch (2005) interpretation: it is proxies going outside the range of variation in the caibration period which cause a problem -- I think this is what he is concerned about. From a physical perspective, I feel it would be more sensible to see temperature climate variations as the cause of the problem -- but the point is not worth arguing. > p.12 and Fig.2. Maybe we can satisfy the reviewer by omitting the > crosses in Fig. 2. These are not needed as the relevant info is anyway > clearly shown in Fig. 5. Then, we would not need to say explicitly which > year that holds the pre-industrial maximum - but we do have to define > what we mean with 'pre-instrumental' period. > Done > > p.13. I think you should add early in section 4 a reference to Jansen et > al. 2007 to make it clear that we are aware of what is said there, and > what is not said there, about the MM criticism of MBH. You could perhaps > use this to argue why our discussion is needed at all. It appears a bit > odd that our paper almost never mentions IPCC2007 but several times > refers to IPCC2001. > OK. We submitted in 2006 -- I think the most readers will understand the relative light discussion of work published after submission. [to do] > p.14. ""... papers which claim to refute that IPCC2001 conclusion and > found that their claims are not well > supported.” This is too focal a statement to leave it that imprecise." I > agree that this sentence is still not good. We could perhaps say > something like: > > "We have also reviewed some criticism (in particular MM200 and MM2005b) > against the MBH1998 and MBH1999 investigations, which were central for > the IPCC2001 conclusion concerning temperature in the last millennium, > and illuminated these past disputes with new analyses which clarify > reasons why different authors have come to different conclusions." > I've changed it too: `` We have also reviewed and, in some cases, tested with new analysis, papers (in particular Soon and Baliunas, 2003, MM2003 and MM2005b)which claim to refute that IPCC2001 conclusion and found that those claims were not well supported.'' This is gives the references, and I've also changed `their claims' to `those claims', meaning specifically the claims to refute the IPCC 2001 conclusions. I'm trying to steer away from the questions to do with whether Mann et al. were justified in publishing what they did when they did, hence I want to keep the reference here to suggestions that IPCC > Fig. 2 and 7. Rayner et al is mentioned in the captions to both these > figures. Replace with Jones and Moberg 2003. > Done > > Supplement: > > Omit Zorita among the authors here. Moreover, I suppose you should write > MM2005b instead of MM2005 in the headline and text for Section 4. > Done > The reviewer says he is still not satisfied with sections 3-4. These two > sections do really go into depth of the MM2003 and MM2005b issues - so > deep that I have not tried to grasp everything. To be honest, I cannot > judge what is good and bad or right and wrong here simply because I have > not studied the MM papers in that great detail. Similarly, I have hardly > contributed anything to sections 1-2 and all figures in the supplement. > Therefore, I cannot really say that I am a 'co-author' of the > supplement. I would feel more comfortable if you could remove my name > from the list of authors of the supplement. Would that be OK? Or, is it > necessary that all authors of the main paper are also authors of the > supplement? > I think the authors listed in the supplement should be the paper authors, not the authors of that particular bit. I'd like to retain the two sections on MM2003, MM2005b because I think we need to justify omission of their conclusions in our review of recent literature. I've added a couple of references to these two subsections into the manuscript section 4. > > cheers, > Anders > > > > Martin Juckes wrote: > > Attached is a rough draft of a response. I hope to get a manuscript modified > > along these line finished by next Wednesday. I'll then be away until Sept. > > 10th, and would like to sent in the reply by the 14th if possible. > > > > I'll get in touch with Hugues next week to see whether he is prepared to offer > > any flexibility concerning the reviewers demands, particularly were the > > reviewer does not comment on the arguments presented in our previous > > response, > > > > cheers, > > Martin > > -- > > Anders Moberg > Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology > Stockholm University > SE-106 91 Stockholm > Sweden > > Phone: +46 (0)8 6747814 > Fax: +46 (0)8 164818 > anders.moberg@natgeo.su.se > www.ink.su.se www.suclim.su.se > http://people.su.se/~amobe > > > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\cp-2006-0049-ms1.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\reply1.pdf"