Mid-Holocene climate change over China: model–data discrepancy

Lin, Yating; Ramstein, Gilles; Wu, Haibin; Rani, Raj; Braconnot, Pascale; Kageyama, Masa; Li, Qin; Luo, Yunli; Zhang, Ran; Guo, Zhengtang

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-15-1223-2019

Articles | Volume 15, issue 4

https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-15-1223-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-15-1223-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 15, issue 4

Research article

| Highlight paper

|

02 Jul 2019

Research article | Highlight paper |

| 02 Jul 2019

Mid-Holocene climate change over China: model–data discrepancy

Yating Lin, Gilles Ramstein, Haibin Wu, Raj Rani, Pascale Braconnot, Masa Kageyama, Qin Li, Yunli Luo, Ran Zhang, and Zhengtang Guo

Download

Final revised paper (published on 02 Jul 2019)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 13 Nov 2018)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

EC1: 'data availability should be carefully considered', Marie-France Loutre, 20 Nov 2018
- AC1: 'comment to editor on "Mid-Holocene climate change over China: model-data discrepancy" By Yating Lin et al.', Haibin Wu, 05 Feb 2019
RC1: 'excellent', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Nov 2018
- AC2: 'Response to Reviewer #1 on "Mid-Holocene climate change over China: model-data discrepancy" by Yating Lin et al.', Haibin Wu, 05 Feb 2019
RC2: 'review comments', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Dec 2018
- AC3: 'Response to Reviewer #2 on "Mid-Holocene climate change over China: model-data discrepancy" by Yating Lin et al.', Haibin Wu, 05 Feb 2019
RC3: 'Review comments', Anonymous Referee #3, 19 Dec 2018
- AC4: 'Response to Reviewer #3 on "Mid-Holocene climate change over China: model-data discrepancy" by Yating Lin et al.', Haibin Wu, 05 Feb 2019
RC4: 'Review', Patrick Bartlein, 24 Dec 2018
- AC5: 'Response to Prof. Bartlein on "Mid-Holocene climate change over China: model-data discrepancy" by Yating Lin et al.', Haibin Wu, 05 Feb 2019

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (08 Feb 2019) by Marie-France Loutre

AR by Haibin Wu on behalf of the Authors (21 Mar 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (22 Mar 2019) by Marie-France Loutre

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (16 Apr 2019)

RR by Patrick Bartlein (09 May 2019)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I think the authors should be commended for their response to (four) wide-ranging and thorough reviews. In particular, the addition of the sensitivity test comparing simulations with present-day as opposed to reconstructed mid-Holocene vegetation is a solid addition, and greatly strengthens the assertion that data-model mismatches are attributable to experimental design issues. Unfortunately, the clarifications and additions are found in the authors’ response as opposed to the revised manuscript. (A quick example: I wondered what “continental size” meant (line 18 in the original manuscript). This was clarified in the authors’ response (p. 37), but not in the revised paper.) Some of the clarifications and explanations are quite substantial, and aren’t even hinted at in the revised manuscript, or appear out of place. For example, the sensitivity test described in the author’s response (p. 9) isn’t really introduced until the end of the discussion section. The material on p. 9 of the authors’ response should appear in the paper itself, partially in section 2, as well as in the discussion.

I’m still concerned about resolution issues, and the direct use of model output at GCM resolutions (as opposed to the standard “apply-the-anomalies” approach, but perhaps my concern would be alleviated if the fragmented discussion of that issue in the authors’ response appeared in one place in the revised manuscript.

Although the authors’ response will be available to readers, its structure, consisting of responses to the individual reviewers in turn, make it less useful, and I worry that readers likely ignore the in any case, assuming that if the paper has been published, all necessary changes have been made.

Specific comments:

Fig. R1 (Model bias discussion in the authors’ response): I think that piControl values should be plotted on the x-axis, to conform to the convention of the predictor on the x-axis, response on the y-axis. Also, with the usual FGOAL-s2 outlier removed, then I do see a relationship for JJA. Fig. R1 does not appear anywhere in the revised version of the manuscript. Is there a further supplemental file that contains the “R” figures?

Fig. R2 (Model resolution): Again, this material belongs in the paper, as opposed to the authors’ response .pdf, where it is likely to be overlooked.

Authors’ response p 13: “The difference in topography caused by model resolution has influence on some small regional climate, but no significant change for general pattern.” I think the idea is that resolution has an impact on small (or regional) scales, but not on the overall pattern. But those small or regional-scale variations in climate can have a large impact on vegetation and hence reconstructed climate.

AOV vs. AO discussion (authors’ response, p. 14): An abbreviated version of this discussion should appear in the paper.

Reviewer 3’s point 2: (More material describing the sensitivity test.) It would be worth pointing out (in the paper) that if vegetation were prescribed using reconstructed biomes, then that would reduce the power of the biome-based climate reconstructions (owing to the potential for circularity: “Prescribe the vegetation to get the vegetation.). I don’t think that’s really the case, but the possibility of circularity will worry some readers and should be acknowledged.

Authors’ response p. 24 (and p. 26): “[Cloudiness is] an inverse measure of sunshine…”. No it isn’t (New et al., 1999, J. Climate 12:829-856). There is a strong latitudinal gradient in the relationship between the two.

Line 21: “Project” (singular, not plural) (https://pmip3.lsce.ipsl.fr)

Line 38: definition of “mid-Holocene” Again, the definition is clarified in the authors’ response, but not the paper.

Line 52: (Source of discrepancies paragraph). The authors’ response handles my concern well, but again, this should appear in the paper. (I’m not just trying to boost my citation count here. Marsicek et al. clearly dismiss the “Holocene conundrum”, and so using the conundrum as a motivation for the current paper seems inadvisable—readers that know about Marsicek et al., will wonder why the conundrum is being used to motivate the current paper, and those data don’t will be left with the impression that there’s a sever mismatch.)

Line 141: (ANN description). Again, the authors’ reply clarifies the approach, but that clarification does not appear in the paper, nor does Fig. “R2”. (Moreover, there are two figures labelled “R2” in the response (p. 25 and p. 45)—the second (p. 45) probably should be R3.

Table S5: What does “(varying from files)” mean?

Hide

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (09 May 2019) by Marie-France Loutre

Dear authors,

Both there reviewers and myself are concerned that the responses to the review were NOT implemented in the manuscript. Referee#4 listed the most important comments/responses that do not appear in the manuscript. Moreover, according to the referee, your responses and the manuscript are giving contradictory information in a few cases. Therefore, I urge you to take into account in the manuscript all the responses that you gave to the referees.

Moreover, as I already mentioned to you, according to CP (Copernicus) data policy, 'data that correspond to journal articles [are requested to be deposited] in reliable (public) data repositories, assigning digital object identifiers, and properly citing data sets as individual contributions’ and the ‘[a]uthors are required to provide a statement on how their underlying research data can be accessed’.

The editor in chief of climate of the past and COPERNICUS journal agreed that it is not compulsory to deposit data in a public database. However, there must be a clear statement on how the underlying data can be accessed.

First, the reference for CQPD (2000) is missing in the main paper. I assumed (but might be wrong) that it refers to
Members of Quaternary Pollen Data Base in Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Science: The evolution of the environment since 10000 years in the south of Liaoning Province, Science in China, 6, 603- 614, 1977 (in Chinese).
although this one is 1977. Could you please clarify this reference.

Second, you must clearly state how the reader can obtain the same information that you got. Could you explain (in the paper, probably in the data availability section) the status of the CQPD (will the data ever be public, can outsiders find out who posted data and to whom the data should be asked?). Moreover, you must let readers know how they could access information from it. If the data are not publicly available (yet) you must identify the individual (name and contact details) to whom request for data should be sent. This information must be included in the ‘data availability’ section.

These requests seems to me to be fair. It will give the paper a minimum standard to be accepted for publication.

Best regards,
Marie-France

Hide

AR by Haibin Wu on behalf of the Authors (16 May 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (17 May 2019) by Marie-France Loutre

Dear authors

Thank you for taking the time to answer the reviewers comments and to include them into your manuscript.

Once more I want to congratulate you for the large amount of work performed in ‘rescuing’ data.

There are still some items that must be improved before publication. I bet that you will honestly make these changes.

1. I understood that the initial manuscript was thoroughly edited for English. Many pieces of text have been included in the manuscript. Therefore a full check for English is required. As an example, the English of section 4.2 as well as of the data availability section is poor. Other sections may suffer from the same problem.
In particular, I don’t understand that the simulations are reliable for temperature and precipitation but the bias is considerable for precipitation.
2. Tables S6 and S7; Figures 3 and 4. Are the values (in the tables and in the box plot) an average over China or the mean of the values at the different points where there are data?
3. Authors’ response p13 (from the reviewer comments). You indicated that you modified the description . Indeed you included most of the reviewer’s comment, except ‘But those small or regional-scale variations in climate can have a large impact on vegetation and hence reconstructed climate’. My understanding is that this sentence is as important (if not more) than the previous one. Could you please include it in the manuscript.
4. A big effort has been made for the references. However, there are still some issues.
a. The following references are both cited as (Li et al., 2011).
Li, X., Zhao, K., Dodson, J., and Zhou, X.: Moisture dynamics in central Asia for the last 15 kyr: new evidence from Yili Valley, Xinjiang, NW China, Quaternary Science Reviews, 30, 23-34, 2011.
Li, C., Wu, Y., and Hou, X.: Holocene vegetation and climate in Northeast China revealed from Jingbo Lake sediment, Quaternary International, 229, 67-73, 2011.
According to Copernicus Publications house standards they should be cited in the text as (X. Li et al., 2011) and (C. Li et al., 2011). Please check your manuscript.
b. I identified the same issue for (Liu et al., 2007), (Zhang et al., 2007), (Wang et al., 2010).
c. More classically, they are also two different references corresponding to (Li et al, 2003). They should be (Li et al, 2003a) and (Li et al, 2003b).
d. There is no reference corresponding to (Yang et al., 2001).
e. Most probably the reference ‘Members of the China Quaternary Pollen Data Base’ for (CQPD, 2000) will not be accepted. You should check with Copernicus on how to proceed. Indeed, if you indicate CQPD in the text, as a reference, it should be find AS IS in the list of references. At the moment it is not the case.
f. The reference Members, M.P. should be MARGO Project Members.
5. The data availability section. I appreciate your effort here. Now the colleagues interested in CQPD data know how to contact the authors to possibly use the data. There are still 91+3 dataset for which nothing is mentioned. My understanding is that you digitized most of them (91). It would be extremely useful if these data were available as well. Can they be requested to one of the co-authors of this paper ? Could that be mentioned in the data availability section ? For the first three datasets in Table 1, you indicate that it is ‘original data’. Then their digital version should be available somewhere. Could you mention where/how to get the values ?
6. Table 2. The eccentricity value for the PI should be 0.016724. Angular precession is not the correct astronomical term (neither in the table nor in the text). I would suggest ‘longitude of the perihelion’. Please check all the values in that table.
7. Figure S9. Why is it no ‘Overall’ values for MRI-CGCM3?

Sincerely

Hide

AR by Haibin Wu on behalf of the Authors (27 May 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (04 Jun 2019) by Marie-France Loutre

AR by Haibin Wu on behalf of the Authors (05 Jun 2019) Manuscript

Short summary

The mid-Holocene has been an excellent target for comparing models and data. This work shows that, over China, all the ocean–atmosphere general circulation models involved in PMIP3 show a very large discrepancy with pollen data reconstruction when comparing annual and seasonal temperature. It demonstrates that to reconcile models and data and to capture the signature of seasonal thermal response, it is necessary to integrate non-linear processes, particularly those related to vegetation changes.