From	Phil Jones	Date	Wed May 28 17:25:27 2008
To	Tom Wigley, Steven Sherwood
CC	Ben Santer, Peter Thorne, Leopold Haimberger, Karl E.Taylor, Tom Wigley, John Lanzante, Susan Solomon, Melissa Free, peter gleckler, Thomas R Karl, Steve Klein, carl mears, Doug Nychka, Gavin Schmidt, Frank Wentz
Subject	Re: David Douglass
Ben et al, Definitely the right response - so agree with Tom. I have been known to disagree with him, and he's not always right. Submit asap !! Cheers Phil At 23:48 27/05/2008, Tom Wigley wrote: Steve et al., Sorry, but I agree with quick submission, but not with giving anything to Douglass until the paper appears in print. I guess the reason John likes 1.2 is because it agrees best with UAH MSU -- which, as we all know, has been inspired by and blessed by God, and so MUST be right. Tom. +++++++++++++ Steven Sherwood wrote: Hi Ben, I for one am happy with submission pronto, leaving to your discretion the comments I sent earlier. I wouldn't feel too threatened by the likes of Douglass. This paper will likely be accepted as is upon resubmission, given the reviews, so why not just send him a copy too once it is ready and final. On a related note I've heard from John Christy who stated his opposition to the new Allen+Sherwood article/method (who would've thought). He argues that Leo's v1.2 dataset is the "best" version because the later ones are contaminated by artifacts in ERA-40 due to Pinatubo. This argument made no sense to me on several levels (one of which: Pinatubo erupted almost exactly in the middle of the time period of interest, thus should have no impact on any linear trend). But there it is. SS On May 27, 2008, at 5:41 PM, Ben Santer wrote: Dear folks, I just wanted to alert you to an issue that has arisen in the last few days. As you probably know, a paper by Robert Allen and Steve Sherwood was published last week in "Nature Geoscience". Peter Thorne was asked to asked to write a "News and Views" piece on the Allen and Sherwood paper. Peter's commentary on Allen and Sherwood briefly referenced our joint International Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper. Peter discussed this with me about a month ago, and I saw no problem with including a reference to our IJoC paper. The reference in Peter's "News and Views" contribution is very general, and gives absolutely no information on the substance of our IJoC paper. At the time Peter I discussed this issue, I had high hopes that our IJoC manuscript would now be very close to publication. I saw no reason why publication of Peter's "News and Views" piece should cause us any concern. Now, however, it is obvious that David Douglass has read the "News and Views" piece and wants a copy of our IJoC paper in advance of its publication - in fact, before a final editorial decision on the paper has been reached. Dr. Douglass has written to me and to Peter, requesting a copy of our IJoC paper. In his letter to Peter, Dr. Douglass has claimed that failure to provide him (Douglass) with a copy of our IJoC paper would contravene the ethics policies of the journal "Nature". As you can see from my reply to Dr. Douglass, I feel strongly that we should not give him an advance copy of our paper. However, I think we should resubmit our revised manuscript to IJoC as soon as possible. The sooner we receive a final editorial decision on our paper, the less likely that it is that Dr. Douglass will be able to cause problems. With your permission, therefore, I'd like to resubmit our revised manuscript by no later than close of business tomorrow. I've incorporated most of the suggested changes I've received from you in the past few days. My personal feeling is that we've now reached the point of diminishing returns, and that's it's more important to get the manuscript resubmitted than to engage in further iterations about relatively minor details. I will circulate a final version of the revised paper and the response to the reviewers later this evening. Please let me know if resubmission by C.O.B. tomorrow is not acceptable to you. With best regards, Ben ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin D. Santer Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103 Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A. Tel: (925) 422-2486 FAX: (925) 422-7675 email: santer1@llnl.gov <[1]mailto:santer1@llnl.gov> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Steven Sherwood Steven.Sherwood@yale.edu <[2]mailto:Steven.Sherwood@yale.edu> Yale University ph: 203 432-3167 P. O. Box 208109 fax: 203 432-3134 New Haven, CT 06520-8109 [3]http://www.geology.yale.edu/~sherwood 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- References 1. mailto:santer1@llnl.gov 2. mailto:Steven.Sherwood@yale.edu 3. http://www.geology.yale.edu/~sherwood