cc: Anders Moberg <anders.moberg@natgeo.su.se>, Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de, esper@wsl.ch, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, m.allen1@physics.ox.ac.uk, weber@knmi.nl, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
date: Mon,  4 Jun 2007 12:17:05 -0400
from: hegerl@duke.edu
subject: Re: Fwd: cp-2006-0049 - Major Revision
to: Martin Juckes <m.n.juckes@rl.ac.uk>

<x-flowed>
Hi all, I'll have a look later this week, I am swamped right now after
coming back from vacation.

I tend to agree that its ok to appendix it (it is taken care of so I wouldnt
worry about funding) and would tend to think its better detailed and 
appendixed
since this controversy is all about detail, but I am happy with Martin's
preference also!

Gabi

Quoting Martin Juckes <m.n.juckes@rl.ac.uk>:

> Hello,
>
> this is a work in progress, but my latest revision is attached. In 
> addition to
> the reviews I sent last week, there is an editors comment posted on the CPD
> site which is referring to our CP manuscript. I think this is the source of
> Referee 1's comments that we ignored the editor's recommendation: it would be
> easy to think that the his comment referred to the CPD manuscript.
>
> I half agree with Anders about reducing the prominence of section 3. However,
> this project was funded because of the controversy surrounding the McIntyre
> and McKitrick vs. Mann et al. debate, so I think it should stay in the paper.
> Here, I have shortened it to one page and moved it to after the main results
> section. I've tried to make the justification clearer, in terms of the need
> to address claims that the whole approach is ill-founded.
>
> The 3 files attached are: a draft revision, a list of changes, and draft
> responses -- still incomplete in many cases.
>
> Other points:
>
>>
>> 2) sec 2, para 1. Change the mentioning of the scale factor (about
>> Esper) by 1.73, to specifying the time period and target region, which
>> is more informative (but still complete).
>
> I've added the time period. I think putting the number is helpful and 
> does not
> add much to length.
>
>>
>> 3) We could omit the footnote abourt "underestimation"
>>
> I've shortened this.
>
>> 4) sec 2.8. Rather than saying that "the debate is ongoing (several
>> refs)", we could mention some of the findings in these and other refs
>> (see below). For example, we could mention that results are dependent on
>> detrending/non-detrending, calibration period length, noise level, noise
>> type. Possible additional refs:
>>
> I'll think about this. Whatever we say needs to be concise.
>
>> @Article{sto06,
>>   author =  {von Storch, H. and Zorita, E. and Jones, J. M. and
>> Gonz\'alez-Rouco, J. F. and Tett, S. F. B },
>>   title =   {Response to comment on "{R}econstructing past climate from
>> noisy data"},
>>   journal = {Science},
>>   year =    2006,
>>   volume =  312,
>>   doi =    {10.1126/science.1121571}
>> }
>>
>> @Article{zor07,
>>   author =  {Zorita, E. and von Storch, H. and Gonz\'alez-Rouco, F.},
>>   title =   {Comment on "{T}esting the fidelity of methods used in
>> proxy-based reconstructions of past climate"},
>>   journal = {Journal of Climate},
>>   year =    {2007, in print}
>> }
>>
>> @Article{wah06,
>>   author =  {Wahl, E. R. and Ritson, D. M. and Ammann, C. M.},
>>   title =   {Comment on "{R}econstructing past climate from noisy data"},
>>   journal = {Science},
>>   year =    2006,
>>   volume =  312,
>>   DOI =     {10.1126/science.1120866}
>> }
>>
>> @Article{man07,
>>   author =   {Mann, M. E. and Rutherford, S. and Wahl, E. and Ammann, C.},
>>   title =    {Reply to comment by {Z}orita et al on {M}ann,
>> {R}utherford, {W}ahl, and {A}mmann '05},
>>   journal =  {Journal of Climate},
>>   year =     {2007, in print}
>> }
>>
>> @Article{dmi06,
>>   author =   {Dmitriev, E. V. and Chavro, A. I.},
>>   title =    {Possible causes of the underestimation of paleoclimate
>> low-frequency variability by statistical methods},
>>   journal =  {Izvestiya, Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics},
>>   year =     2006,
>>   volume =   {42},
>>   number =   {5},
>>   pages =    {586-597}
>> }
>>
>> 5) sec 4.2. The conclusion that "...the choice of proxy records is one
>> reason why different reconstructions show different ranges ..." is an
>> important one (even if it is not new). It should be mentioned both in
>> the abstract and the conclusions.
>>
>> 6) Remove the specific reference to the year AD 1091
>>
> OK, changed to `in the 11th century'.
>
>> 7) At all relevant places, make it clear when we refer to the TAR and
>> when we refer to AR4 (if we do the latter at all)
>>
> I'll check
>> 8) Appendix A, INVR. Isn't there some mistakes in how the indices i and
>> k are used? As far as I can see, it should be:
>>
> corrected
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>



</x-flowed>
