date: Mon, 12 May 2008 11:40:44 -0700 from: Ben Santer subject: Re: Response to Reviewer 1 to: Phil Jones Dear Phil, The letter from Holland is terrible. I hope that the IPCC and UEA are helping you out. It all seems eerily reminiscent of the Second Assessment Report. Hope that you and Keith and Tim don't have to spend years of your lives justifying why changes were made to AR4 chapters... I did receive the second review of our IJoC paper today. It looks very positive. I think we're going to be in good shape. Cheers, Ben Phil Jones wrote: > > Ben, > This lot should be sufficient to deal with this reviewer. Let's hope > the other > reviewer (or other two) come through fairly soon. > > As you're probably aware there has been an awful lot of discussion > of the > Douglass et al paper on Climate Audit. A quick scan shows there are a lot > of people easily taken in out there. Douglass appear to claim that version > 4 wasn't there when they wrote the paper, but Leo says he recommended > they use it! Will also be interesting when the Allen/Sherwood paper > appears > in Nature/Geoscience. Also look out for Nature for May 29. > > If and when your paper comes out this CA discussion will all start again. > > Attachment for your eyes only. We're having to deal with this! > > Also Glenn has sent Tim a paper to review - which he's passed onto me > as well. > Glenn has decided he isn't up to making a decision on this one. It is > about > some of the text in Chapter 3 of WG1 of AR4! At least Glenn has > listened now. > This one also goes into chapter and verse of IPCC regulations, and why > text was added/deleted from the various drafts! > > Cheers > Phil > > > > At 02:14 06/05/2008, you wrote: >> Dear folks, >> >> Here's a first draft of the response to Reviewer 1's comments on our >> IJoC manuscript. I've done some new work in order to address the >> Reviewer's concerns. I'm not sure whether the additional analyses will >> satisfy the Reviewer. I certainly hope they do. >> >> From my perspective, the Reviewer was overly concerned with technical >> details that have little or no impact on the overall conclusions of >> our paper. Having spent four months on this paper, I have limited >> enthusiasm for further exploration of these technical details. I feel >> that we've done enough. >> >> I've used some comments from Steve Sherwood in responding to points #5 >> and #7 raised by Reviewer 1, and comments from Carl Mears prompted the >> analysis described in point #1. >> >> Before making changes to the manuscript itself, I thought I'd wait for >> the other two sets of review comments that Glenn McGregor promised to >> send me. These have still not arrived, which is a bit worrying. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Ben >> >> (P.S.: I will be at the University of Santa Cruz from Wednesday >> through Friday of this week, and out of email contact. I'll be back in >> my office next Monday.) >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Benjamin D. Santer >> Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison >> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory >> P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103 >> Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A. >> Tel: (925) 422-2486 >> FAX: (925) 422-7675 >> email: santer1@llnl.gov >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> > > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin D. Santer Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103 Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A. Tel: (925) 422-2486 FAX: (925) 422-7675 email: santer1@llnl.gov ----------------------------------------------------------------------------