Chris Brierley edited section_Line_by_Line_comments__.tex  over 8 years ago

Commit id: 8719f0ce0555ad0426197922676c9a6b035b2f84

deletions | additions      

       

item[P4015, L9] Please refer to figure 3 somewhere. This seems the most appropriate place.  \item[P4015, L15] Please my comment on the topography above. This sentence is insufficient to justify the new boundary conditions by itself.  \item[P4015, L17] Surely altering the Bering Strait is a change in the Land-Sea mask. If modelling groups have the ability to do this change (and in my experience making new land is more awkward than new ocean), then shouldn't they be doing the other experiment. Incidentally, I would anticipate that this change is important for the AMOC, so worth including.  \item[P4017, L23] It isn't clear to me how the ice sheets and topography are separated in the factorisation approach. I think you need to provide guidance here. Does imposing ice-sheets also contain the topographic element associated with the ice-sheet or does that count in the topography? At its simplistic this could be ice-sheets could be thought of as white mountains, so the `i' component only relates to the land surface specification. That doesn't make much sense intuitively. The problem is however much more complicated than that, as you've taken account of the glacial isostatic adjustment in the your topographic reconstruction. At this point, I'm not sure it's that important (it would need to be discussed seriously in the factorisation results). Here you do need to provide practical guidance to allow the runs to be performed.  \item[P4018, L3] Is `predict' the best choice of word here?  \item[P4019, L18] I was unsure why you have selected this river routing approach? In CESM this specification may require much more effort than formally deriving the new river routes from the Pliocene topography. Perhaps you could provide some justification for this choice.  \item[P4020-1] See comment on simulations above