Friday, December 30, 2011

1254179301.txt

From: Grant Foster <tamino_9@hotmail.com>
To: <trenbert@ucar.edu>, Mike Mann <mann@meteo.psu.edu>, <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>, "J. Salinger" <j.salinger@auckland.ac.nz>, James Annan <jdannan@jamstec.go.jp>, <b.mullan@niwa.co.nz>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov>, <j.renwick@niwa.co.nz>
Subject: FW: 2009JD012960 (Editor - Steve Ghan):Decision Letter
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:08:21 +0000

> From: jgr-atmospheres@agu.org
> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:54:05 +0000
> To: tamino_9@hotmail.com
> Subject: 2009JD012960 (Editor - Steve Ghan):Decision Letter
> CC: twistor9@gmail.com
>
> Manuscript Number: 2009JD012960
> Manuscript Title: Comment on "Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric
temperature" by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter
>
>
> Dear Dr. Foster:
>
> 3 reviews of your above-referenced manuscript are attached below. Reviewer 3 is concerned
with the tone on the writing; while I appreciate the value of "taking the high road", I do
not object to emphatic statements that conclusions are incorrect. Strong language is needed
sometimes when errors must be corrected. Please carefully consider the Reviewers'
recommendations for revisions, make the necessary changes, and respond to me with a
point-by-point response of how you have addressed each concern. In your cover letter,
please include a statement confirming that all authors listed on the manuscript concur with
submission in its revised form.
>
>
>
> The due date for your revised paper is October 28, 2009. If you will be unable to submit
a revised manuscript by this time, please notify my office and arrange for an extension
(maximum two weeks). If we do not hear from you by the revision due date, your manuscript
will be considered as withdrawn.
>
> When you are ready to submit your revision, please use the link below.
>
> *The link below will begin the resubmission of your manuscript, please Do Not click on
the link until you are ready to upload your revised files. Any partial submission that sits
for 3 days without files will be deleted.
>
>
<http://jgr-atmospheres-submit.agu.org/cgi-bin/main.plex?el=A7Bc6EiyL2A2FTof1I3A9OLsgIoKEcG
4DW4K5nQ0wZ>
>
>
> (NOTE: The link above automatically submits your login name and password. If you wish to
share this link with co-authors or colleagues, please be aware that they will have access
to your entire account for this journal.)
>
> **In order to save time upon acceptance, it would be helpful if files in the correct
format are uploaded at revision. Article and table files may be in Word, WordPerfect or
LaTeX and figure files should be separately uploaded as .eps, .tif or pdf files. If you
have color figures, please go to the site below to select a color option. Please put your
color option in the cover letter.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/e_publishing/AGU-publication-fees.pdf
>
> Please see the AGU web site for more information about preparing text and art files
(http://www.agu.org/pubs/inf4aus.shtml). If you have any questions, please contact the
editor&#xFFFD;s assistant.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Steve Ghan
> Editor, Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres
>
> -----------Important JGR-Atmospheres Information-------------------------------
>
> Submission, Review and Publication Stages Chart
> Text Preparation and Formatting
> Manuscript Preparation
> Acceptable Electronic File Formats
> Editorial Style Guide for Authors
> Auxiliary Materials (Electronic Supplements)
>
> Artwork Preparation
> Guidelines for Preparing Graphics Files
> Figure FAQ
> Prices for Color in AGU Journals
>
> AGU Copyright Transfer Form
> Manuscript Status Tool (for manuscripts recently accepted)
>
> If you need assistance with file formats and/or color options please e-mail
jgr-atmospheres@agu.org and quote your manuscript number.
>
> If you need Adobe Acrobat Reader to download the forms, it is available, free, on the
internet at: http://www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Reviewer Comments
>
> Reviewer #1 (Comments):
>
> This paper does an excellent job of showing the errors in the analytical methods used by
McLean et al. and why their conclusions
> about the influence of ENSO on global air temperature is incorrect.
> I have only a couple of suggestions to help clarify their analysis of the methods. First,
a little more explanation of the comment about the time derivative reduced to an additive
constant would help. Second, in the analysis of the artificial time series I think it would
be interesting to show the results of both steps of filtering (running mean and derivative)
as separate time series. This would help the reader understand why the filtering creates
false correlations. The only other suggestion is to find a better adjective than "faulty"
in the abstract to characterize the analysis.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Reviewer #2 (Comments):
>
> I think this comment on McLean et al can be published more or less as is.
>
> I have two comments
>
> First, in the abstract (page 3, line 15), I'm not sure that "inflating" is quite the
right verb - the paper itself does not make the point that the filter constructed by McLean
et al inflates power in the 2-6 year window. Perhaps "isolating" would be a better verb.
>
> Secondly, I think the points that are being made with Figures 4 and 5 could be
strengthened by adding to the right of each plot of a pair of time series, a scatter plot
of the pairs of values available at each time. Such a scatter plot would help to clearly
illustrate the absence (upper panels) or presence (lower panels) of correlation between red
and black values.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Reviewer #3 (Comments):
>
> Accept pending major changes (mainly in style not scientific comment)
>
> The real mystery here, of course, is how the McLean et al. paper ever made it into JGR.
How that happened, I have no idea. I can't see it ever getting published through J Climate.
The analyses in McLean et al. are among the worst I have seen in the climate literature.
The paper is also a poorly guised attack on the integrity of the climate community, and I
guess that is why Foster et al. have taken the energy to contradict its findings.
>
> So the current paper (Foster et al.) should certainly be accepted. Someone needs to
address the science in the McLean et al paper in the peer-reviewed literature. But the
current paper could be - and should be - done better. That's why I am suggesting major
changes before the paper is accepted. All of my suggestions have to do more with the tone
and framing of the current paper, rather than its content.
>
> 1. As noted above, I agree McLean et al is problematic. But as it is written, the current
paper almost stoops to the level of "blog diatribe". The current paper does not read like a
peer-reviewed journal article. The tone is sometimes dramatic and sometimes accusatory. It
is inconsistent with the language one normally encounters in the objectively-based,
peer-reviewed literature. For examples....
> - In the abstract: Do you really need all of these adjectives?...'greatly overstates';
'severely overestimates'; 'faulty analysis'; 'extremely high'.
> - In the introduction... 'Unfortunately, their conclusions are seriously in error..."
strikes me as overly subjective. Better to say: 'We will demonstrate that their conclusions
are strongly dependent on ....' or something like that...
> - Page X-6: 'tell us absolutely nothing'. Surely it's enough to state 'tell us nothing'.
> - Page X-9: 'it is misleading...' That's a strong word. It may be true. But I think we
should rise above such accusations.
>
> Anyway, I'm sure the lead author gets my point. I think the current paper will have a
much greater impact (and can claim the high road) if it is rewritten in a more objective
manner.
>
> 2. Similarly, instead of framing the paper as "Taking down McLean et al.", why not focus
more on interesting aspects of the science, such as the frequency dependence between ENSO
and global-mean temperature (perhaps cross-correlation analysis would be useful); the
importance of not extrapolating results from one timescale to another timescale; or the
lack of trends in ENSO. That way, the current paper contributes to the peer-reviewed
literature while also doing a service by highlighting the problems with McLean et al.
>
> 3. In general, the current paper is sloppy and needs tightening. I don't think the lead
author needs 10 pages of text to make the main points.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
______________________________________________________________________________________

Hotmail� has ever-growing storage! Dont worry about storage limits. [1]Check it out.

References

1. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage_062009

No comments:

Post a Comment