Reconstructing Late Holocene North Atlantic atmospheric circulation changes using functional paleoclimate networks

Franke, Jasper G.; Werner, Johannes P.; Donner, Reik V.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-13-1593-2017

Articles | Volume 13, issue 11

https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-13-1593-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Special issue:

Climate of the past 2000 years: regional and trans-regional...

https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-13-1593-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 13, issue 11

Research article

|

17 Nov 2017

Research article |

| 17 Nov 2017

Reconstructing Late Holocene North Atlantic atmospheric circulation changes using functional paleoclimate networks

Jasper G. Franke, Johannes P. Werner, and Reik V. Donner

Download

Final revised paper (published on 17 Nov 2017)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 14 Mar 2017)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'More physical interpretation needed', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Apr 2017
- AC1: 'Response to RC1', Jasper G. Franke, 15 Jun 2017
RC2: 'Reviewer: Adequation between objectives and methods should be better described and supported', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 Apr 2017
- AC2: 'Response to RC2', Jasper G. Franke, 15 Jun 2017
RC3: 'Comment on "Reconstructing Late Holocene North Atlantic atmospheric circulation changes using functional paleoclimate networks".', Anonymous Referee #3, 18 Apr 2017
- AC3: 'Response to RC3', Jasper G. Franke, 15 Jun 2017
SC1: 'Data Review Team Comment', Darrell Kaufman, 05 May 2017
- AC4: 'Response to SC1', Jasper G. Franke, 15 Jun 2017

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (22 Jun 2017) by Hugues Goosse

AR by Jasper G. Franke on behalf of the Authors (25 Aug 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (28 Aug 2017) by Hugues Goosse

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (15 Sep 2017)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

This is my second review of this paper. The paper has strongly improved following the first round of review and is now in very good shape, almost ready for publication. It will constitute an interesting input to existing literature on the subject. Nevertheless, I still have a few suggestions for clarifications, which may be mandatory from my point of view, to allow it to be published.

1) P. 2, L. 24-26, the AMO potential impacts are claimed to be not “consistently represented in the proxy data”, but the reader is left to understand what this is meaning and how such a strong conclusion has been reached. Furthermore, it is a bit weird to have this claim concerning a preliminary result already in the introduction. I would advise to clearly explain in a paragraph or so why the AMV is not consistently represented in the proxy data (which analysis, metrics used…) and to move this in the results section of the analysis

2) P. 3, L. 32: “stationary manner”. I do not get why the authors are doing this claim. Pseudo-proxy approaches are allowing to apply a given statistical methodology to output of climate models, where the true NAO is known, to see notably if there is a kind of stationarity in the reconstruction quality. It is not assuming any stationarity hypothesis. This is mainly a way to test statistical methodology and see within a model world if it works properly when everything is known i.e. reconstructing an index from a few locations, while the dynamical index is known and this, for a long timeframe (last millennium simulations for instance). Can you please further clarify what you have in mind here?

3) P. 12, L. 19: Usually the calibration/validation approach is made with an ensemble approach (through random selection of different independent calibration and validation periods), leading to a distribution of r2 that allows to have a better idea on the performance of the statistical model used.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (20 Sep 2017)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by Editor) (21 Sep 2017) by Hugues Goosse

AR by Jasper G. Franke on behalf of the Authors (28 Sep 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (09 Oct 2017) by Hugues Goosse

AR by Jasper G. Franke on behalf of the Authors (09 Oct 2017)

Short summary

We apply evolving functional network analysis, a tool for studying temporal changes of the spatial co-variability structure, to a set of Late Holocene paleoclimate proxy records covering the last two millennia. The emerging patterns obtained by our analysis are related to long-term changes in the dominant mode of atmospheric circulation in the region, the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). We obtain a qualitative reconstruction of the NAO long-term variability over the entire Common Era.