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   will be considered as withdrawn.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.
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
     ______________________________________________________________________________________

   HotmailŪ 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

