Thursday, December 29, 2011


From: Jonathan Overpeck <>
To: Darrell Kaufman <>, David Schneider <>, Nick McKay <>, Caspar Ammann <>, Bradley Ray <>, Keith Briffa <>, Miller Giff <gmiller@Colorado.EDU>, Otto-Bleisner Bette <>, Jonathan Overpeck <>
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
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
9. yep, delete all "attribution"s in the ms. On p 6, lone 129, can say " 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]> wrote:

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.
(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.
Begin forwarded message:

From: Lisa Johnson <[2]>
Date: May 26, 2009 12:25:40 PM GMT-07:00
To: Darrell S Kaufman <[3]>
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] 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

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

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


Jesse Smith, Ph.D.
Senior Editor



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]
PA Lou Regalado +1 520 792-8712
Embedded Content: image.png: 00000001,3e910253,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content:
image1.png: 00000001,35902c45,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted:


1. file://localhost/tmp/
2. file://localhost/tmp/
3. file://localhost/tmp/
5. file://localhost/tmp/
6. file://localhost/tmp/

No comments:

Post a Comment