cc: , date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 11:41:54 +0000 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: your article to: "Julia Uppenbrink" Dear Julia, I should be doing some reading of my EU proposal, but I've begun reading the paper and your modifications. Most (90%) are fine, but there are a few where the sense has changed and/or we've not said enough to say what you've said. The obvious two are the 'Boundary conditions' in the emboldenned paragraph and the additional two sentences at the start of the article. Anyway we will work on these. Keeping track of all the changes will be difficult, as we have to make all the changes to the numbers and this will mean that the tracked version will look a complete mess. I'm proposing we send you the revisions and responses (to A and B) and also to you where we've not incorporated your changes. Is this OK ? A couple of other things : 1. Endnotes. I've understood the instructions on endnotes. Let me check I have it write. At the moment we have 71 endnotes that are referred to in the text. For those endnotes that refer to papers that are not already numbered these should go in order and start at 72 onwards. Any additional refs that appear in tables and figures come later. I think this is the logical way. We have quite a few that will go this way and as this is a review we referred to many. So is about 100-120 OK ? You say reduce to 70 or less, but then we will be omitting some key ones. I have decided where we can make 1-2 pages of reductions, but this doesn't reduce the endnotes at all. 2. There is no need to refer to years as AD. We are only talking about years after 1000. If you do want AD in, the rule historians and others use to put AD before the year and BC after. I'd prefer to omit all AD's. Sorry for more questions, but I want to be clear before I start. Cheers Phil At 14:57 08/02/01 +0000, Julia Uppenbrink wrote: >Dear Phil > >Thanks for your message. To answer your questions: > >(1) Length. Please aim for a 1-2 page shortening overall. >(2) Revisions. It is perhaps best if you go through my changes first and >make sure that they are correct. You can them accept all of mine and add >yours (please track them and send a version that shows them). >(3) Please send e-mail and hard copy (the hard copy should not show the >changes). > >Please note that I did not finalize the references. What still remains to be >done is that the reference numbers must be adjusted in the text. Also, you >have to move all the references that are cited within notes to separately >numbered references, and then cite their numbers in the notes. > >Best wishes > > Julia > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: 08 February 2001 14:42 >To: Julia Uppenbrink; t.osborn@uea.ac.uk >Cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk >Subject: Re: your article > > > > Dear Julia, > Thanks for the review comments and your email. We are all busy here >with EU > submissions. They have to be finished by the end of Tuesday (13th), so we >will get > to the paper revisions then. I will look through the paper in detail over >the weekend. > In the meantime, your email says that we should shorten two sections (or >pulled > together somewhat). Should we be aiming for a specific wording reduction ? > I have noticed all your wording changes through tracker and have >listed the whole > paper off in colour so they can be clearly seen. Do you want us to put >our changes > (to accommodate the reviewer's) in tracker as well ? I guess I'm saying >should we accept > all yours, then make modifications using tracker or will you be wanting >back from us a > clean version without any tracked changes ? > Thanks for all your help getting the references to the new Science >system. I hope this > didn't take too long. > Do you want the revised manuscript by email again - as well as a hard >copy posted > to Cambridge ? We will, of course, send an extra page or two detailing >how we have > responded to the two reviewers. > > Best Regards > Phil > > >At 12:52 08/02/01 +0000, Julia Uppenbrink wrote: > >Dear Phil and Tim > > > >We have received the reviews for your article (see below). The official > >letter, copyright form, and hard copies of the reviews and the marked copy > >follow by mail. I enclose here also an edited copy of your article; it >would > >perhaps be best if you used this electronic copy to enter your revisions. I > >have used the "Track Changes" and "Comments" features, so please make sure > >that you can view all my changes and queries. Please let me know if >anything > >is unclear, and send your revision within 3 weeks. Note that the text >should > >be shortened somewhat; I think the NH Temperatures section could be pulled > >together somewhat, as could the ENSO section. > > > >Thanks again for writing this interesting article for us. > > > >Best wishes > > > > Julia > > > >--------------------------start of >reviews---------------------------------- > > > >Review 1: > >This ms. is excellent and merits publication as is. In face of the ongoing > >discussion about the recent global warming and its cause(s), this paper > >provides the necessary critical review of the records to address the >issues. > >The much quoted Mann et al. paper (Nature 1998) was critizised for the lack > >of > >such a discussion, and I am profoundly thankful for Briffa et al to have > >taken the time to correct the situation. With this publication the climate > >interpretations with respect to the last two decades and their cause can > >no longer be denied. > > > >Review 2: > >This is an excellent summary of the state of our knowledge, at present, of > >climate during the past millennium. I think that the tone of the article >and > >level of detail are appropriate for a Science review article. The authors > >have done a thorough job of reviewing the recent progress in proxy-based > >climate reconstructions of the past several centuries-to-millennium, and > >have placed appropriate emphasis on regional variations and patterns, as > >well as hemispheric/global indices of climate change. There is a good > >balance between discussing what is known, and acknowledging the significant > >uncertainties that still remain. I encourage publication with only some > >very minor revisions. Some specific comments/suggestions are indicated > >below. > > > >Given the very close overlap in content, it would be appropriate for the > >authors to cross-refer to a very similar review article in the press and >due > >out soon in the journal "Weather" published by the Royal Meteorological > >Society [Mann, M.E., Climate During the Past Millennium, Weather, in >press, > >2001]. This latter article also summarizes the recent evidence for changes > >in hemispheric mean temperature, ENSO, and the NAO over the past millennium > >from paleoclimate reconstructions and comes to similar, though not > >identical, conclusions. There is also a section on long-term drought > >variations, a subject which the authors here choose not to discuss. A > >preprint is available over the web, and galley proofs are available from M. > >Mann by request. > > > >1) 1st paragraph of intro: there is, of course, a connection between our > >ability to provide seasonally-specific climate histories at the regional > >scale and our ability to reconstruct patterns related to ENSO, the NAO, > >"PDO", etc. I would argue that if we could do the latter well (which we > >can't quite at present), we could probably do the former quite well also. >In > >other words, the authors might want to draw a more specific relationship > >between the comments in the middle and end of this paragraph. > > > >2) page 4, second paragraph, sentence "Studies based...can be reliability > >reproduced...". There is a very important caveat that should be stated >here. > >This presumes that the covariance structure of temperature variability of > >the 20th century is the same as that in the past. There are good reasons > >this may not be true. The pattern of anthropogenic warming represents a > >larger-scale warming that that found in patterns of natural variability, >and > >thus the studies in question may underestimate the degree of spatial detail > >necessary to capture large-scale patterns of climate variability prior to > >the advent of anthropogenic warming. In short, the assumptions implicit >here > >are not that different, at all, from the assumptions discussed in the > >subsequent paragraph, and this should be recognized. > > > >3) bottom of page 5/top of page 6, statement "...(of which a number are in > >common to each study)". While this is factually correct, it is important to > >note that the key indicators (multi-millennial length high-elevation >western > >U.S. tree ring width chronologies) which largely carry the Mann et al > >reconstruction prior to AD 1400 are not used in any of the other studies. >In > >this sense, the estimates are more independent than is implied w/ the > >present wording. > > > >4) page 7, 1st paragraph and footnote #25, comparison of Mann et al and > >Jones et al southern hemisphere temperature reconstructions: I think it is > >important to emphasize the difference in the target series for the two > >cases. Even though both are called "Southern Hemisphere mean", the Mann et > >al series is essentially, by construction, a southern hemisphere tropical > >mean series, while the Jones et al series is much more of an extratropical > >mean series. This is a smilar, but an even more extreme, distinction than >in > >the corresponding Northern Hemisphere mean series, and the first sentence > >of the paragraph hints at this, but doesn't quite do justice to the extent > >of the distinction. There is a large correlation between the S. Hem and > >N.Hem series in the Mann et el reconstructions largely because the target > >regions both contain substantial coverage in the tropics (and the s.hem and > >n.hem tropics vary essentially in synchrony). The interhemispheric > >correlations cited in (25) would be found in the instrumental record itself > >given the two very different latitudinal emphases of the southern >hemisphere > >estimates, and should not be attributed to the reconstructions or >underlying > >proxy data per se, but, rather, the target region. > > > >5) In 26 cite also the accompanying commentary [Mann, M.E., Lessons For a > >New Millennium, Science, 289, 253-254, 2000] which further expands on some > >of these issues, as well as Bradley, R.S., 1000 Years of Climate Change, > >Science, 288, 1353-1355, 2000 which discusses various possible alternative > >interpretations of the roles of forced and internal variability in >governing > >the spatially-complex patterns of climate change over the past millennium. > > > >6) How about changing (last sentence, bottom of page 8) "Despite the > >caveats..." to "Acknowledging the caveats..."!! > > > >7) page 9, discussion of Stahle et al vs. Mann et al: It would be > >appropriate to mention that the two reconstructions are correlated (see > >Mann et al, Earth Interactions, 2000) at about r=0.6 during both >calibration > >and pre-calibration periods, which is not that different from the numbers > >(r=0.7; see footnote #36) cited for their instrumental counterparts! > > > >8) page 9. It is worth noting that Urban et al [Urban, F.E., Cole, J.E., > >Overpeck, J.T., Influence of mean climate change on climate variability >from > >a 155-year tropical Pacific coral record, Nature, 207, 989-993, 2000] note > >(see also Mann et al, Diaz El Nino book, 2000) a breakdown of interannual > >ENSO variability (i.e., perhaps a collapse of the typical delayed >oscillator > >mechanism) in the early/mid 19th century, but a persistence of decadal > >variability through that period, which may explain the variations in the > >warm and cold event frequency statistics. > > > >9) page 10. It is essential to also acknowledge in (42) the recent paper by > >Cullen et al [Cullen, H., D'Arrigo, R., Cook, E., Mann, M.E., > >Multiproxy-based reconstructions of the North Atlantic Oscillation over the > >Past Three Centuries, Paleoceanography, in press, 2001] which presents some > >other alternative proxy-based reconstructions of the NAO and compares, more > >rigorously than in any other published study, the similarities and > >differences therein, and points out some serious flaws in the conclusions >of > >ref #43 (the authors might also like to attempt pers. comm. w/ E. Cook on > >this matter). > > > >10) Concluding remarks: amen! (especially the last paragraph!) > > > >------------------------------end of >reviews-------------------------------- > >============================================== > >Dr. Julia Uppenbrink > >Senior Editor, Science (Europe Office) > >82-88 Hills Rd, Cambridge CB2 1LQ > >T +44 1223 326500 F +44 1223 326501 > >E juppenbrink@science-int.co.uk > >visit our website: www.sciencemag.org > >submit electronically: www.submit2science.org > >============================================== > >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 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------