From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@email.arizona.edu>
To: Darrell Kaufman <Darrell.Kaufman@nau.edu>, David Schneider <dschneid@ucar.edu>, Nick McKay <nmckay@email.arizona.edu>, Caspar Ammann <ammann@ucar.edu>, Bradley Ray <rbradley@geo.umass.edu>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>, Miller Giff <gmiller@Colorado.EDU>, Otto-Bleisner Bette <ottobli@ucar.edu>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: Your Science manuscript 1173983 at revision
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 12:22:57 -0700

   Hi Darrell et al - got a chance to read the paper and comments enroute to Atlanta. Here's
   some feedback..
   General - comments are modest and should be easy to accommodate. That said, I think we have
   to take the comments of Rev 2 seriously. I'm guessing that its Francis Zwiers and in any
   case, he knows what he's talking about regarding stats.
   Also - IMPORTANT - I'd make sure we check and recheck every single calculation and dataset.
   This paper is going to get the attention of the skeptics and they are going to get all the
   data and work hard to show were we messed up. We don't want this - especially you, since it
   could take way more of your time than you'd like, and it'll look bad. VERY much worth the
   effort in advance.
   Ok Rev 1 - wow - never had it so good.
   Rev 2
   General comment - we should take this one seriously. Get Caspar and Bette's help. The new
   synthesis could be telling us (especially when the outlier in Fig 4B is discounted - see
   below) that the Arctic is, in reality, more sensitive to changes in radiative forcing than
   reflected in the model. Are there other experiments or reasons to think this is true? If
   so, let's make this point and back it up with these other pieces of evidence. For example,
   does the CCSM get Arctic warming from the earl/mid Holocene to present correctly? Does the
   model underestimate the Arctic change obs over the last 100 years. Since the reviewer
   raised this, you could add some refs and prose if needed to respond. Not a lot, but some.
   And, we need to respond one way or the other.
   Specific comments
    1. agree, in the abstract, I suggest changing the sentence to read "This trend likely
       reflects a steady orbitally-driven reduction in summer insolation, as confirmed by a
       1000-year transient climate simulation." Note that this removes more than enough words
       to meet the

   eds requirement too.
   2. for this one, I'd simply state that the forcing is stronger in the Arctic than at lower
   lats (double check how much) and also add what Giff suggested.
   3. agree, make the suggested clarification
   4. important (!) and hopefully easy. I leave to whomever did the calculation to make sure
   any serial correlation bias was taken into account. Make sure all p values are thus
   corrected.
   5. ditto, makes sense too
   6. clarify
   7. this reviewer knows what he/she is talking about  - do what they suggest, and double
   check it's done well.
   8. Don't delete the para. Instead point out that you've strengthened it and that it is
   important to place the new synthesis in a longer term Holocene context. It also clarifies
   to interdisciplinary readers why the Arctic is so sensitive (perhaps more sensitive than in
   models? - see above). That said, I would cite Kerwin et al 99 - I've attached it. It
   provides added detail and balance. Also, since you're responding to a reviewer comment and
   strengthening the ms, you can add the ref w/o hassle (or so I'm guessing on recent
   experience).
   9. yep, delete all "attribution"s in the ms. On p 6, lone 129, can say "...support the
   connection between the Arctic summer cooling trend and a orbitally-driven reduction..."
   10) reviewer is correct - see my response above for the general comment, and see if you can
   work with his/her ideas to improve. The outlier has to be just that?! Need an explanation
   before you can remove from any analysis, however.
   11) makes sense - do it
   12) yep - change text as suggested
   13) agree, change p 7, line 153 to read "...1980s appears to have been the single..."
   14) agree, change line 167 on p 8 to read "...trend. Our new synthesis suggests that the
   most recent 10-year..."
   Other suggested changes....
   P. 3 line 69 - change region to read regional
   P 6 line 128 - "(-2600 to -1600AD) isn't going to make sense to readers. Please provide
   some context - SOM or ??
   P 7 line 145 - insert "Arctic" before "summer"
   P. 11 line 234 change to read "...century. Ten-year means (bold lines) were used..."
   Because you don't really say what the bold and unbold lines are - this will help the reader
   make sure they have it right.
   Fig 4 and caption - need to explain why the isolation axes are labeled differently - the
   numbers, and that both are still cover the same number of Wm-2.
   Didn't look at SOM, but make sure it's all bomber too, since there is a good chance it will
   get PICKED apart, and any errors thrown back in our face in a counter productive manner.
   Thanks! Nice job. Best, Peck (probably w/o email for a while in the Amazon, although one
   never knows...)
   On 5/26/09 1:08 PM, "Darrell Kaufman" <[1]Darrell.Kaufman@nau.edu> wrote:

     Co-authors:
     I just received the reviewers' comments and editor's decision on our SCIENCE manuscript
     (attached). The decision isn't final, but it looks like good news, with very reasonable
     revisions. Reviewer #1 had nothing substantial to suggest. Reviewer #2 was rather
     thorough. I think I can address his/her suggestions but could use some help with three:
     (1) The reviewer challenged our assertion that, because climate change is amplified in
     the Arctic, the signal:noise ratio should be higher too. We don't have more than 1
     sentence to expand on the assertion in the text. We could plead the case to editor and
     hope that it doesn't trip up the final acceptance, or we could omit it from the text.
     Suggestions?
     (2) The reviewer suggested that, if we are concerned about outliers influencing the mean
     values of the composite record, we should attempt a so-called "robust" regression
     procedure, such as median absolute deviation regression. Does anyone have experience
     with this?
     (3) The reviewer was concerned that we overestimated the strength of the relation
     between temperature and insolation in the long CCSM simulation. Namely s/he criticized
     the leveraging effect of the one outlier in the model-generated insolation vs
     temperature plot (Fig. 4b), and suggested that we use 10-year means instead of 50 year.
     Dave: you up for this, please?
     Please forward any input to me and I'll compile them, and let you all have a look before
     I submit the final revisions. I'm hoping we can turn this around this week.
     Thanks.
     Darrell
     Begin forwarded message:

     From: Lisa Johnson <[2]ljohnson@aaas.org>
     Date: May 26, 2009 12:25:40 PM GMT-07:00
     To: Darrell S Kaufman <[3]Darrell.Kaufman@nau.edu>
     Subject: Your Science manuscript 1173983 at revision

     26 May 2009


     Dr. Darrell S Kaufman
     Department of Geology
     Frier Hall Knoles Dr
     Northern Arizona University
     Box 4099
     Flagstaff, AZ 86011
     UserID: 1173983
     Password: 307923

     Dear Dr. Kaufman:

     Thank you for sending us your manuscript "Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic
     Cooling."  We are interested in publishing the paper as a Report, but we cannot accept
     it in its present form.  Please revise your manuscript in accord with the referees'
     comments (pasted below) and as indicated on the attached editorial checklist and marked
     manuscript.  I have also made some suggestions regarding shortening and clarification
     directly on the manuscript.  Because of the nature of the reviewers' comments and
     revisions required, we may send the revised manuscript back for further review.

     Please return your revised manuscript with a cover letter describing your response to
     the referees' comments.  We prefer to receive your revision electronically via our WWW
     site ([4]http://www.submit2science.org/revisionupload/) using the User information
     above.  In your letter, please also include your travel schedule for the next several
     weeks so we can contact you if necessary.  The revised manuscript must reach us within
     four weeks if we are to preserve your original submission date; if you cannot meet this
     deadline, please let us know as soon as possible when we can expect the revision.

     The cost of color illustrations is $650 for the first color figure and $450 for each
     additional color figure.  In addition there is a comparable charge for use of color in
     reprints.  We ask that you submit your payment with your reprint order, which you will
     receive with your galley proofs.  We also now provide a free electronic reprint service;
     information will be sent by email immediately after your paper is published in Science
     Online.

     Science allows authors to retain copyright of their work.  You will be asked to grant
     Science an exclusive license to publish your paper when you return your manuscript via
     our revision WWW site.  We must have your acceptance of this publication agreement in
     order to accept your paper.  Additional information regarding the publication license is
     available in the instructions for authors on our www site.

     I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.  Please let me know if I can be of
     assistance.

     Please let me know that you have received this email and can read the attached files.

     Sincerely,


     Jesse Smith, Ph.D.
     Senior Editor
       ___________________________________________________________________________________

     [cid:3326358178_1079548]
       ___________________________________________________________________________________
       ___________________________________________________________________________________

     [cid:3326358178_1100494]
       ___________________________________________________________________________________

   Jonathan T. Overpeck
   Co-Director, Institute for Environment and Society
   Professor, Department of Geosciences
   Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
   Mail and Fedex Address:
   Institute of the Environment
   715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
   University of Arizona
   Tucson, AZ 85721
   direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
   Email: [5]jto@u.arizona.edu
   PA Lou Regalado +1 520 792-8712
   [6]regalado@email.arizona.edu
   Embedded Content: image.png: 00000001,3e910253,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content:
   image1.png: 00000001,35902c45,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted:
   "c:\eudora\attach\kerwin_et_al&role&1999.pdf"

References

   1. file://localhost/tmp/Darrell.Kaufman@nau.edu
   2. file://localhost/tmp/ljohnson@aaas.org
   3. file://localhost/tmp/Darrell.Kaufman@nau.edu
   4. http://www.submit2science.org/revisionupload/
   5. file://localhost/tmp/jto@u.arizona.edu
   6. file://localhost/tmp/regalado@email.arizona.edu

