cc: kfarnsworth@usgs.gov, lsmith@geog.ucla.edu, kxu@vims.edu
date: Wed, 2 May 2007 11:56:26 -0400
from: John Milliman <milliman@vims.edu>
subject: Re: Decision from Science
to: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>

           Thanks, Phil, for the reply - and for the IPCC write-ups. You seem to travel more
   than even I do.

           The e-mail just sent to Jesse Smith at Science, I think, speaks about my increasing
   disregard for the Milly paper.  If anyone ever wants evidence about the luck of the draw in
   reviewers, one only has to look at the Milly et al. paper published in Nature and the
   Milliman et al. paper rejected  by Science.

           On the other hand, Jesse Smith clearly likes the paper, saying that he would like
   to use it in Editors Choice one it is published.

           Right now Kevin Xu (with whom I have been talking this morning) are leaning towards
   GRL.  We may the luxury of adding another figure - apparently, as you have noted, papers
   can go onto a fifth, sometimes even a sixth, page.   If there were to be a new figure, I
   can always pull up (and modify) the seasonal plots that we (ultimately) decided not to
   include in the Science ms.  That shows pretty clearly the  disconnect between seasonal pptn
   and runoff trends.  Many of the other comments by the reviewers are either easily addressed
   or off the mark.

           Katie, Larry, if you could weigh in on any other comments - or responses - to the
   reviews, that would be great.  I would like to get this thing off my desk within the next
   week or so.  Just to keep you up to date, we presently have 135 rivers in our data base
   with the hope of expanding it by several more (e.g., we may have a full 50 yrs now for the
   Amur, and there are 45 years for a river in the Philippines).

           What do you all think about changing the size of our symbols in Fig. 1, as
   suggested by the one reviewer?  I note that Milly et al. also used different sizes for
   their symbols, which the reviewer obviously had not problem with....

           On looking at the ms again - and, of course, the figures - do any of you have any
   other comments or suggestions?

           Best wishes,

           John

     John,
         Off on travels for the next 10 days, so a brief reply. The path of least
      resistance is likely GRL, but to say a little more JGR would be better,
      then you're not constrained by the 4 page length (although it seems
      most GRL papers now go onto 5 pp).
         At the end of my message, I've put in the link to the AR4 chapters of
      IPCC, which can now be downloaded. Of particular interest is Ch 3 and 4.
      Ch3 is quite large, so takes a while to download. Ch4 has some
      discussion of permafrost which may be relevant to include.
      Ch3 has a Figure (3.14) which shows large-scale comparisons (largish
      regions, which aren't that great climatically) between GHCN and CRU.
      For almost all of them the two datasets agree amazingly well.
       This Figure will help you deal with the comments from Rev 2 (#3). The
      figure does exactly what the reviewer wants. The reviewer doesn't know
      what they are talking about on this issue, by the way! GHCN does do
      homogeneity checks on the precip time series, but the density in most
      regions of the world is inadequate to make any reliable adjustments.
      The adjustments tend to cancel out if you looked at GHCN unadjusted cf
      the adjusted dataset.  So that is that one dealt with. Why people think GHCN
      is better is beyond me. Much of their data in many developing parts of
      the world comes from CRU !!  Must be a US reviewer!!
       The Milly paper point has to be dealt with, as you've said.
      Adding the seasonal analyses will address Rev 2's #4.  Winter precip in the
      arctic is relatively small (provided it is measured OK), so showing this would
      be important. Winter's are long in the Arctic, so the choice of seasons to do
      any analysis over are important.  Arctic runoff in winter in pretty constrained,
      as it is flow under the ice. It could be that when freeze-over occurs it is at
      higher levels recently, so the area under the ice at the gauging station is
      larger. If the level of freezeover is the same, then volume underneath is
      the same, so the flow can't go above a certain limit. The thoughts in this

      para may be rubbish, but I've always wondered about winter flow under the
      ice.
       Rev 3 didn't say much !
      Rev 1 looks at though it might be Rob Wilby here in the UK. Can't think why
      anyone would refer to his paper in GRL.?  Again these comments refer to Milly,
      so there needs to be some reconciliation of the trends some people have got
      in many of the rivers.
        Hope these comments useful. The references to the CRU dataset annoyed me,
      but I've calmed down now.
        Might have some email when away, but back May 14.
      Cheers
      Phil
      Dear Authors and Review Editors
     We are very pleased to be able to tell you that the final checks and layout corrections
     to our SPM, TS and Chapters are now complete. As a result we are making the final
     versions of the Preface, SPM, TS, all Chapters, and Annexes (Glossary, List of authors,
     List of reviewers, List of acronyms) publicly available from the WG1 home page (
     http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/ ) today. The supplementary material (for those chapters that
     have it) is nearly complete and will be added shortly.
     You are of course very welcome to use and now distribute any of this material. In some
     cases figures have been adjusted slightly here by our graphics designer and we intend to
     create separate Powerpoint files soon with the final figures from each chapter as a
     convenient resource for your use as well.
     An index is being prepared by a professional indexer; we still need a Foreword from the
     Secretariat; and we are discussing the cover layout with CUP. A complete package should
     go to CUP for publication on May 7 as planned and when we know what the book printing
     schedule is likely to be we will let you know.
     We cannot easily communicate the sense of accomplishment that this brings. We are
     extremely grateful for all your hard work that has created a superb report and one that
     we truly believe now sets a higher standard for all future assessments.
     Thanks and best regards from
     Susan, Martin, Melinda M, Kristen, Melinda T, and Roy  (IPCC WG1 West)
     Dahe and Zhenlin (IPCC WG1 East)
     --
     Recommended Email address: mmanning@al.noaa.gov
     Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit
     NOAA, Earth System Research Laboratory  Phone: +1 303 497 4479
     325 Broadway, R/CSD 2                     Fax:   +1 303 497 5628
     Boulder, CO 80305, USA
     _______________________________________________
     Wg1-ar4-las mailing list
     Wg1-ar4-las@joss.ucar.edu
      http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-las
     At 20:12 01/05/2007, Larry Smith wrote:

     Sorry John.  It's your call, of course - but the path of least resistance would seem to
     be GRL or another short-format journal. best, Larry
     On Tue, 1 May 2007, John Milliman wrote:

             Well, after 76 days - count them - Science finally came back with two reviews,
     neither of which was particularly favorable.  In fact, other than the fact that both
     pointed out us/me missing the Milly (2005) paper, it does not look to me that either
     reviewer really read the paper very thoroughly: some of their questions are actually
     answered if they only searched a  bit further.  Both reviewers, however, were tardy, no
     doubt requiring more than one reminder from Science, suggesting (to me) that  they
     probably ultimately rushed their readings of the paper.
             As you might expect, however, this is not the end of the line for me. But I do
     need to sit down and think about the next approach. Some of the reviewers' questions
     really reflect the concise nature that the paper had to be in order to be considered for
     Science.  The seasonal change in pptn vs discharge, as you may remember, is something
     that we decided not to include, even though it showed exactly what we said in the ms.
             Clearly I need to go back and read the Milly paper.  But I also need to think
     about whether we stick with a shorter ms for GRL, or expand it a bit and try for another
     journal.
     Any suggestions, comments?
           John

     Ref: 1141378
     Dear Dr. Milliman:
      Thank you for submitting your manuscript "Climatic and Anthropogenic Factors Affecting
     River Discharge To The Global Ocean, 1951-2000."  We have now received the detailed
     reviews of your paper.  Unfortunately they are not positive enough to support
     publication of the paper in Science. Although we recognize that you could likely address
     many of these specific criticisms in a revised manuscript, the overall nature of the
     reviews is such that the paper would not be able to compete for our limited space. We
     hope that you find the comments helpful in preparing the manuscript for submission to
     another journal.

      We would appreciate it if you would let us know before its publication when and where
     the paper is to appear, so that it can be nominated as an "Editor's Choice" feature in
     Science.
      We are grateful that you gave Science the opportunity to consider your work.
      Sincerely,
      Jesse Smith, Ph.D.
     Senior Editor

     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
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
