A sample response letter for reviewer's comments

CCSP Synthesis and Assessment Report 3.1 Climate Models: An Assessment of Strengths and Limitations for User Applications

Response to Peer Review Comments English Editing Service: https://www.sodocs.net/doc/8613601281.html,

Reviewer: Kerry H. Cook

COMMENT: Pg. 5, line 9, that models

RESPONSE: The text was corrected.

COMMENT: Pg. 5., lines 7-11.

Climate Model Construction, first paragraph. The second and third sentences in this paragraph seem to me to gloss over a basic issue about the development of climate models. These sentences suggest that climate model development has been driven by the need for applications related to people, and this really isn’t the case – historically. For example, there has been very little attention paid to “storminess” over the decades of GCM development since the models can’t resolve storms. GCMs were interesting to construct because they taught us how the climate system works – their development has much more of a “basic science” motivation than this paragraph indicates. More recently, of course, development is being driven by the global warming problem. RESPONSE: We agree that, historically, the motivations for climate model development were not applications related. The “Climate Model Construction” section, which begins on page 15 of the Public Review Draft (PRD), refers to current development motivations. The reviewer acknowledges this in the last sentence of the comment.

COMMENT: Pg. 5, lines 14-18. To say that a “good” climate model “must” accomplish these feats is not correct. Plenty of climate models – probably all of them, depending on the strictness of your measures of success – fail at most of these tasks.

RESPONSE: The “Climate Model Construction” section was significantly altered and the text was replaced with correct language and better descriptions.

COMMENT: Pg. 5., line 20. A more complete definition of “climate”, carefully distinguishing it from weather, would be good here. People often need to understand how we can claim to have some skill in predicting climate change in 100 years or more when we can’t produce very skillful seasonal or interannual forecasts.

RESPONSE: The text has been changed as suggested, on pages 15-17 of the PRD. COMMENT: Pg. 6, lines 1-2 and 7. The tone of the piece is uneven. These lines give an example, with lines 1-2 seeming to be directed to other scientists (maybe a physicist, for example) and line 7 sounding like a middle-school text book (particularly “by scientists”).

RESPONSE: We agree with the criticism.Improved and expanded text replacing this paragraph begins on line 9, page 16 of the PRD.

COMMENT: Pg. 7, line 7. Suggested rewording: … and the physical laws that govern the exchanges of mass and energy

RESPONSE: The suggested change was made.

COMMENT: Pg. 7, line 13, the primitive equations … with the hydrostatic RESPONSE: The paragraph was rewritten. Improved text begins on line 1, page 25 of the PRD.

COMMENT: Pg. 9, lines 4 – 5: Cumulus convection … is …

RESPONSE: The term was changed to “cumulus convective transports” (line 23, page 22 of the PRD).

COMMENT: pg. 11, line 13, referred to as a …

RESPONSE: The sentence has been changed on line 21, page 26 of the PRD. COMMENT: pg. 12, line, 9: delete separate

RESPONSE: That section was rewritten starting on page 21 of the PRD. The sentence referred to by the reviewer was removed.

COMMENT: pg. 17, line 26: define and use “OGCM”, similar to AGCM RESPONSE: OGCM is now defined on line 5, page 26 of the PRD.

COMMENT: pg. 28, lines 1-21. As I think is implied by an author’s parenthetic note, these paragraphs are out of place and/or redundant with material at the beginning. There are some fresh thoughts here, though, they should not be lost.

RESPONSE: Response is included with the response to the next comment. COMMENT: Pg. 28, lines 24-31. I like this paragraph and think it conveys something useful about how GCMers work and think.

RESPONSE: The section titled “Component coupling and coupled model evaluation” that began on page 27 and continues through page 28 of the Reviewer’s Draft has been shortened and rewritten in the PRD. The new text begins on page 45. The questionable section and the text the reviewer commended were both removed. Nevertheless, an improved discussion of model tuning and evaluation gives significant insight into the model development process, which we believe was the point the reviewer was making. The subject of sensitivity is entirely contained in Chapter IV.

COMMENT: Pg. 47, lines, 5 and 9, and numerous other spots: Regional climate model applications should not be uniformly referred to as “downscaling” simulations, since this gives the impression that their only use is to provide more detail in conjunction with GCM simulations (as fancy interpolators, for example). This is one use of regional models, but they are also used to simulate climate and climate change independently of GCMs as well – in present day, future, and paleoclimate applications.

RESPONSE: The broader application of regional simulations to study climatic processes not resolved by atmosphere-ocean GCMs has been noted at the end of the first paragraph of Chapter III. (line 19, page 61 of the PRD).

COMMENT: Pg. 50, line 21-23. RCMs have been successfully run without convection parameterizations with grid spacing on the order of 5 km. This is noted on pg 51, lines 12-13, contradicting the pg 50, line 21-23 statement.

RESPONSE: The text has been altered to recognize that convection parameterization is not always used at the highest RCM resolutions. (line 30, page 65 pf the PRD). COMMENT: Pg. 79, lines 1-2. messed up text

RESPONSE: Revised text discussing the ITCZ problem and precipitation errors starts at line 15, page 93 of the PRD.

General comments:

COMMENT: While the detailed comparison of the U.S. models is useful to provide depth, singling out 3 U.S. models (modeling groups, more accurately) does not give an accurate overview of the ability of GCMs in general. The U.S. models are all terrific and absolutely state-of-the-art, but GCM modeling is a global endeavor at this point – requiring international collaboration - and that could be more strongly related in the text. RESPONSE: Chapter II of the PRD contains an expanded discussion of the CMIP3 class of models, including a more complete accounting of model improvement over time and a brief discussion of model metrics. We continue, however, to emphasize the three US models that participated in the CMIP3 coordinated experiments, because the report’s audience is primarily based in the US.

COMMENT: It would be useful to strengthen the discussion throughout of how observations support modeling activity, with specific examples. For example, a statement that satellite observations are essential for validating models and understanding climate processes in remote land areas and over the oceans. Also, as global models evolve to finer grid spacings, and currently for regional model simulations, information about structure at the surface (soil moisture, vegetation, soil temperatures) is going to become increasing important – either for constraining the models or for validating. This will require both land-based and space-based observing systems. Another possible example concerns observations of the large-scale ocean circulation, e.g., the THC. How accurately is it known, including the features of its natural variability? In general, how does a scarcity of observations map onto model development and improvement? RESPONSE: The emphasis of the report is on the characterization of how well current models simulate the climate, and most of Chapter V is devoted to comparisons of model results to observations. Chapter VI of the PRD has multiple examples of how improved process representation (cloud microphysics, soil biogeochemistry, ecosystem representations) in future models depends on the quality and availability of data.

Reviewer: Roberto Mechoso:

General Comments

COMMENT: The report focuses primarily on the physical climate models that were used for the most recent international Coupled Model Intercomparison Project’s (CMIP) coordinated experiments (Meehl, et al., 2006), sponsored by the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP). Nevertheless, several other models are mentioned along the text. In my opinion, this limitation is too restrictive.

RESPONSE: The CMIP3 models are generally acknowledged to be well-tested state-of-the-science climate simulations codes. Unless a modeling system has gone through the CMIP3 set of experimental protocols, it would be difficult to assume much about their general suitability for a wide range of applications, which is the focus of this report. While other models may be mentioned in the report, these additions were for clarity or to better expose a point. We acknowledge that other models are used for certain applications, but this report deals with the ability of models in general to address many applications.

COMMENT: What I have in front of me is a long text in a very bland format, similar to the one used for a scientifically oriented readership. A good technical editor can make the text much more readable by highlighting key sentences and inserting attractive figures. The process will lead to an evaluation of the report, as outstanding aspects become isolated from the large amount of information available.

In the same way, the text consistency can be greatly improved. The text refers to a different number of models in different parts. Also, the models selected for discussion are referred to in different ways: American models, leading models, US AOGCMs…One can recognize pieces of other reports in the overall text. This roughness can be easily smoothed out.

RESPONSE: The report has been extensively reorganized and major sections have been rewritten. The information is now more evenly and more logically presented, and we have tried to reduce jargon where possible and attain consistency where it is retained.

COMMENT: I find many statements without an adequate reference. It is understood that if all references are included in a text dealing with so many diverse topics, the list may become longer than the paper itself. Nevertheless, in some cases the need of a reference is obvious. (For example, the statement of the anti-correlation between rainfall over the Sahel and the Amazon requires a reference.) There is a very nice discussion on climate sensitivity. The list of strengths and weaknesses of current models is long and there is always room for one more.

RESPONSE: The reviewers’ draft contained many missing references, which was regrettable. Following review, multiple proofreads were performed to identify sections where references were missing, as well as sections that required additional documentation. The section referring to the Sahel-Amazon relationship was removed from the report to address concerns of another reviewer (Meehl).

COMMENT: My version does not have an executive summary.

RESPONSE: An executive summary was included in the current version.

COMMENT: The report focuses primarily on climate models that were used for the most recent international Coupled Model Intercomparison Project’s (CMIP). Thus, the emphasis is mostly on the coupled atmosphere-ocean system. The decision to restrict the scope of the report is a good one, and the way it is done is justified at the present time. I am sure that the authors are expecting some challenges to their decision, so here they go in the form of questions.

a. What are the fundamental differences in the modeling approaches of the different institutions? Are some efforts more innovative than others? Can we get the feeling of an integrated national approach to climate modeling and simulation?

b. Why aren’t any university lead efforts mentioned? It is acknowledged that university groups played a leading role in the development of climate models. What is happening nowadays? Are there universities producing new modeling paradigms, and if not, why not? (I think they are!) Where is instruction on climate modeling happening?

c. Why isn’t there a section on the stratosphere? The Antarctic Ozone Hole is a success story since science motivated an international agreement. The role of climate models in this problem has not been, to my knowledge, properly discusse

d. Obviously the model could not predict the feature due to the lack of the proper chemistry. The problem is not completely gone; can climate models help to understand why?

d. The access by users of a computational infrastructure to run large codes can be briefly reviewed. This is, of course, in the understanding that work with GCMs is not confined to the large national laboratories. Even if this were the case, are national laboratories satisfied with their computer facilities?

e. The efforts lead by NASA and NCAR to create a software infrastructure to facilitate the use of climate models can be mentioned. The Earth System Modeling Framework (ESMF) promises to enhance the use of climate models.

RESPONSE: Although the reviewer asks many pertinent questions that are relevant to the science of climate modeling and its further development, particularly in the United States, we feel that most of his questions are beyond the scope of the present document, which is primarily a review of the current state-of-the-science of current models as a guide to using the output from them for applications. As to why there are differences among the models, we have tried to cover that at the appropriate level in Chapter 2, without going into too much detail. As the reviewer correctly notes, there are university and other research groups that are active in the climate modeling enterprise. In the scoping of the document, we intentionally concentrated on the CMIP3 class of models, particularly those based in the United States, because the results from the CMIP3 simulations are the source of climate model output for nearly all recently published climate model applications.

Chapter I. Introduction

COMMENT: I do not have any comments of note on this chapter. The text gives a feeling for a more or less monotonic improvement of models from the point of view of science, in a way that increased complexity results almost exclusively from increased computer power. I believe that mentioning just one of the milestones in climate modeling (e.g., the Phillips two-layer experiment) will enhance the reader’s appreciation of the science issues.

RESPONSE: We improved the chapter, by adding some detail and improving the flow of the historical development section. We appreciate the reviewer’s concern for the appropriate historical context and considered including the Phillips’ simulation referred to above. Nevertheless, it was considered too much of a detail from a climate modeling perspective, although it was major accomplishment in atmospheric general circulation modeling.

Chapter II. Description of Global Climate System Models

Atmospheric general circulation models

COMMENT: The descriptions in this chapter are authoritative. However, they fall in a middle ground that is of little use to either the general reader and the specialist. The clearest example is in the paragraph on cumulus convection. The expert reader will learn little from the description of the schemes. For the non-expert, a mention of the quasi-equilibrium assumption without a minimum context will be meaningless.

Why is it that the majority of AGCMs use variants of the Arakawa-Schubert parameterization? This magnificent accomplishment is almost 30 year old; what has happened in the meantime? Is this an issue that ought to be brought up in this review? RESPONSE: We have substantially rewritten Chapter 2 to make the descriptions more readable, useful and at an even level of detail. We believe a detailed discussion of the Arakawa-Schubert parameterization is beyond the scope of the document, and multiple papers are referenced should a reader desire further information. The text beginning with the last paragraph of page 22 of the Public Review Draft was revised from the original to: (1) remove some of the jargons such as quasi-equilibriums, and (2) give a more complete discussion of why the mass flux scheme has prevailed. This section is intended for readers who do not have a background in climate modeling, but with sufficient science knowledge to get an appreciation of the constructs of atmospheric models.

Ocean general circulation models

COMMENT: The text refers to the relatively coarse horizontal resolution of the models. It is indicated that “eddy scales” are parameterized. I think it is important to clarify that these scales do not correspond to the turbulent eddies that are parameterized in AGCMs. Contemporary OGCMs do not resolve mesoscale eddies, which can be originated by baroclinic-barotropic instabilities of ocean currents. These can play an important role in closing the ocean mixed layer budget by providing shoreward heat and material transport that balance the upwelling supply of cold water and the air-sea heat exchange. There are also standing eddies associated with alongshore coastline and bathymetric irregularities. The difficulties in closing the budgets may be key in many places, such as the eastern part of the tropical oceans.

RESPONSE: We agree with the criticism. The expanded discussion on page 31 of the Public Review Draft addresses these concerns.

Evaluation of AGCMs and OGCMs

COMMENT: This section is one paragraph long and is not balanced with the others in the report. Perhaps it could be merged with the longer discussion in Chapter V. RESPONSE: We agree with the criticism and have significantly expanded the discussion of model evaluation in Chapter 2 in several places, most notably in a section on coupled model evaluation and metrics on pages 53-57 of the Public Review Draft.

Land Surface Models

COMMENT:This is a straightforward description of the different aspects of land surface modeling.

I find intriguing that “PILPS has lead to a better agreement among land models”. Is it implied that the models were basically the same except for “tunable” parameters? The statement that “The latest generation of land surface models exhibit relatively smaller differences compared to previous generations” reinforces this impression. Are there major differences between land surface models?

RESPONSE: Current land models reflect different pathways followed for adding processes and increasing realism, so they differ by more than tunable parameters. This factor is now noted in the third paragraph on page 33 of the Public Review Draft, where reference is also made to the variety of land models used by current GCMs.

Sea Ice Models, including parameterizations and evaluation

COMMENT: The two dominant paradigms in sea ice modeling are discussed here practically side by side. This is a useful strategy.

RESPONSE: None required

Component coupling and coupled model simulations

COMMENT: This section includes the development plans at the 3 US groups that contributed to the 4th Assessment of the IPCC. It is good to find the plans in one place, but is unclear whether this compilation adds to the information already on the institutions web sites.

RESPONSE: We believed the information would be useful to the audience of the report, who we anticipate will be mostly US based readers who may be unfamiliar with the complexity of the model development process.

Reductive vs holistic evaluation of models

COMMENT: This section is very different from the others in terms of scope and style. The speculative style seems to be at odds with the matter-of-fact style in the remainder of the text. I gather that the concepts to be transmitted are three. First, ensemble simulations must be performed in order to consider the spread and characteristics of variability of the individual realizations. Second, our “confidence in its explanatory and predictive power of climate models grows based on their ability to simulate many aspects of the climate system simultaneously with the same set of physically based rules.” Third, one cannot “tune” the model for one region of the world since all regions are simulated. Perhaps this can be done very efficiently in a few sentences.

RESPONSE: This section was completely rewritten and integrated into the model evaluation section (page 53 of the PRD). It illuminates some of the tradeoffs required in climate model development that are mostly unknown outside of the modeling community. We believe that this information is important to those who my apply climate models or use their results.

Chapter III – The added values of regional climate simulations

Types of downscaling simulations

COMMENT: I liked this section; it brings up many of the concerns on the topic and that are not easy to find in a single source.

There are a couple of spots that I found to be rough. In reference to the different performance of parameterizations in global and regional models, it is stated, “This factor is part of a larger issue, that parameterizations may have regime dependence, performing better for some conditions than others” (page 51). I can understand dependence on grid size, but I am not quite clear on different physical regimes for the same grid size. Or, doesn’t the difference sensitivity of parameterizations to physical process have an impact in all grid sizes and the impact becomes exaggerated for some grid sizes? RESPONSE:The issue of regime dependence was discussed in the examples of convective parameterizations immediately following the quoted statement. How regime dependence might change with resolution has not been explored in the literature. Chapter IV– Model Climate Sensitivity

COMMENT: This is a very important chapter, and I believe that the job was well done. RESPONSE: No response required

Chapter V – Model simulation of major climate features

Mean climate

COMMENT: This section has a long paragraph on the “double ITCZ” problem without a single reference. This is an important problem of high relevance to climate simulation and prediction. The links to the model difficulties with ENSO are evident.

The last paragraph of the section is that “AOGCMs generally simulate large-scale mean climate with considerable accuracy, but the models are not reliable for aspects of mean climate in some regions, especially precipitation.” The last paragraph at the end of a long section will attracts a lot of attention from the readers, and requires more elaboration and an attempt to synthesis.

RESPONSE: We have revised the mean climate section, but left the last paragraph intact without expansion. The section is concise, so an extensive summary would be redundant. The short paragraph is for transition.

Monsoons

COMMENT: A more current view describes monsoons as involving both atmosphere and oceans. The presentation here is more traditional and looks at the atmosphere as reacting to changes in different time scales.

RESPONSE: We modified our description of the monsoon to focus upon the seasonal wind reversal, which places less importance upon the ocean, implicitly emphasizing the role of the atmosphere. Our presentation here is limited to the seasonal cycle, because this time scale has been emphasized by the model diagnoses.

COMMENT: A reference is needed on the processes that limit the extent of the monsoons. Are the authors referring to the ventilation paradigm?

RESPONSE: We have added a citation to Prive and Plumb (J. Atmos. Sci., in press), a modeling study that discusses the advection of maritime air to feed convection over land. COMMENT: It seems to me that one basic problem in monsoon simulation is not addressed, and that this problem poses serious questions on whether the climate model monsoons are proxies of reality. Monsoons comprise processes at the planetary, continental and meso scales. Among the latter are the “low-level jets”. These differ in the monsoons: 1) The Somali Jet, which flows in summer at all times, 2) the South American Low Level Jet, which flows along the lee of the Andes during the entire year, and 3) the Great Plains Low Level Jet, which flows in North America at night during the warm season. These mesoscale features are captured poorly by global GCMs. The associated problem is that water advection is underestimated. If simulated precipitation is realistic, then local processes such as evaporation have to be exaggerated. Consistently, the role of soil processes may be over-emphasized. Can monsoon projections be trusted in view of these uncertainties in the water budget?

RESPONSE: We have added a brief discussion of unresolved spatial scales in the last paragraph.

COMMENT: Another problem that is attracting a lot of attention is the GCM difficulties in simulating the diurnal cycle and its variability in monsoon regions. It has become clear that the peak precipitation amplitude is too early in the day. This feature is likely associated with the PBL parameterization, which receives little attention in the text. RESPONSE: While this is an important issue for agriculture (with implications for transpiration and runoff), we are currently aware of no articles that evaluate the diurnal cycle of the recent IPCC models. We acknowledge this point in the last paragraph. COMMENT: Monsoon researchers have recognized that tropical cyclones contribute significantly to precipitation, primarily in the North American monsoon. AGCMs mentioned in the report cannot resolve such features, but others are claiming that they do it to some extent. Any opinions on this?

RESPONSE: We acknowledge this point in the discussion of subgrid transports in the last paragraph.

Polar Climates

COMMENT: Add “in the polar regions” before the reference to Uotila et al. (2007). RESPONSE: The text is now included.

COMMENT: Please clarify in which way “stable boundary layers remain an important area for model improvement.” There is little discussion of PBL in the report and this may be a place where this limitation can be at least partially addressed.

RESPONSE: The greater difficulty in simulating the stable PBL versus the unstable PBL seems to be well known, which is the basis for this statement.

COMMENT: The well-know problem of the “cold lower stratosphere of GCMs” receives little or no attention. This affects the zonal wind and planetary wave behavior, and hence low-frequency variability. The paper by Pawson et al (BAMS 2000) addresses this problem.

RESPONSE: Most CMIP3 models do a poor job in stratospheric simulation. This is briefly described on page 108 of the Public Review Draft.

COMMENT: Please clarify what is meant by “Because both the northern and southern polar regions are within circumpolar atmospheric circulations, their synoptic coupling with other regions is more limited than is the case with midlatitude regions embedded in the westerlies”.

RESPONSE: We agree that there were problems with the original text. There is a much better description of polar circulations and annular modes in the Public Review Draft on page 6, and in a section beginning on page 107.

Modes of variability

COMMENT: I believe that the section on El Ni?o-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) must be adjusted a little since it appears to be originally intended to discuss many more (15) models than the ones selected for this report. We read a very important statement: “We find that even among the models with the most realistic simulation of ENSO and seasonal variability there is no consensus on the anticipated change in climate within the tropical Pacific.” (Presumably the realistic ENSOs are those obtained for current climate conditions.) This is difficult to justify by inspection of just the three models that selected at the beginning.

RESPONSE: We note in the revised version that the conclusions about projected ENSO changes are based on a worldwide suite of models, and that the American models are cited simply to illustrate the central scientific issues. We note that the most realistic models are identified based upon their simulation of the present-day climate. COMMENT: I am unclear on the argument about the upwelling “dilution” associated with the coarse grid spacing of CGCMs. According to the argument, the dilution limits the amplitude of resulting ocean temperature fluctuations. A current hypothesis is that the most important aspect of coarse horizontal resolution is the inability to resolve mesoscale ocean eddies that result from the baroclinic-barotropic instability along the upwelling front. The mesoscale eddies transport cold and fresh water off shore, thus extending the effect of upwelling in a scale far larger than the grid size.

RESPONSE: We have tried to explain more clearly how coarse resolution reduces the cooling effect of water rising to the surface at the equator. To be sure, mesoscale eddy transports will also be affected by the coarse resolution, although we are not aware of a study that compares this effect with that of unrealistically low upwelling. COMMENT: In regard to climate prediction, what is the relative skill of physical models based on coupled GCMs in relation to simpler dynamical models and to statistical models? This is an important issue, although the report aims to time scales longer than the interannual.

RESPONSE: As the reviewer implies, these ‘simpler dynamical models and statistical models’ are generally intended for prediction on interannual (and shorter) time scales. In contrast, this report focuses on the ocean-atmosphere coupled models that are used for multidecadal and centennial projections of climate over the entire globe. Comparing the skill of these two classes of models is difficult. The global coupled models are not tuned for interannual prediction, but they are intended to predict slow, multidecadal changes in the mean state that are important for variability and that might be held constant in the simpler class. In response to the reviewer’s comment, we simply note the distinction between these two classes of models.

Extreme events

COMMENT: “Extreme events” here refers to largest simulated values of precipitation or surface temperature. The limitations of current GCMs in this area are so clear (i.e. inability to simulate tropical cyclones, at least in climate simulations) that the text can be trimmed to emphasize issues of consensus on the information provided. Several researchers have already evaluated model performance in the context of “extreme events”.

I would like to see a discussion on the usefulness of these studies in reference to 1) climate science, 2) model performance.

This is actually attempted in parts of the text. For example, the issue that thunderstorms are responsible for many intense events is raised and could be discussed further. It is mentioned that this is related to the parameterization of convection, which is only one aspect of the problem.

RESPONSE: Although the limitations of GCMs are indeed clear to modelers and many other climate scientists, they are not the target audience of this report and thus we feel that it is important to elaborate on this issue. We are unsure how to respond to the rest of this comment. We raise the issues of resolution and convective parameterizations; these have been the subject of research studies as we point out. We are unclear as to what other “aspects of the problem” is the reviewer referring. We note that CCSP Synthesis and Assessment Report 3.3 evaluates our understanding of extreme events in detail, including current capability for simulating extremes and their changes with climate change.

Chapter VI – Future Model Development

COMMENT: The description of CRMs and their future reads well. Maybe it gives the impression that these models are more ready for climate studies than they actually are. Higher resolution changes the parameterization problem, but it doesn’t make it necessarily easier. The full effect of increased model resolution provided by CRMs will be experienced when comparable or even higher resolution is also available in the boundary conditions, which must be provided by other models.

There is another paradigm for multiscale problems that will be likely attempted in the next decade. This is the nesting of coupled regional models of the atmosphere and the ocean within global coupled GCMs. The difficulties in nesting regional and global models are discussed in Chapter III of the report. However, some of those difficulties may be reduced in regions that are key to the climate system, and yet interactions with other regions at the synoptic scale are not intense. I am referring to the eastern part of the tropical oceans, where coupled GCMs fail with the stratocumulus and their radiative effects. It seems to me that, in the near future, there will be a strong interest in coupling regional models of the atmosphere-ocean system. Some of the work has started, but the full potential of the approach remains to be evaluated.

RESPONSE: The reviewer’s points are well taken. This now is covered in the discussion of CRMs that begins on page 161 of the Public Review Draft.

Reviewer: Gerald Meehl

Authors’ Note: The version of the Reviewers’ Draft reviewed by Dr. Meehl did not have page or line numbers. His page references are based on a MS Word version of the document, which has slightly altered formatting, and therefore page numbers, from the PDF version that was created from that MS Word document. We appreciate Dr. Meehl’s extra effort in working with the earlier version.

General comment

COMMENT: The report is a quite thorough overview of the state of current climate modeling. In fact there is probably a bit too much text book type material that could be trimmed. There is some duplication of material (e.g. ENSO is described in two different places). With the exception of the section that had implications for ethical practices by modeling groups that included speculation and hearsay that modeling groups essentially cheat by tuning equilibrium climate sensitivity, I found the draft to be an otherwise high quality and comprehensive review of climate modeling.

RESPONSE: In the revision, we have evened the presentation of the different topics and provided a consistent level of detail for the intended audience. The ENSO information was consolidated and begins on line 24, page 143 of the Public Review Draft (PRD). The sections on model evaluation and tuning were rewritten and the questionable text removed. The revised text begins on line 6, page 52 and continues through page 58 of the PRD.

Specific comments:

COMMENT:P. 7, top: There is a statement here that “typical AGCMs have spatial resolution of 200 kilometers in the horizontal and 20 levels…” This certainly isn’t “typical” of current AGCMs used in coupled climate models. The current crop is closer to 150 km with about 30 levels (more details are given on the PCMDI CMIP web site). RESPONSE: We do not consider “typical” to refer to a strict number. Of the three US models, only the CCSM used relatively high resolution of T85 and L26. The GISS group used 4 degrees by 5 degrees with 15 levels; GFDL used 2.5 degrees by 2 degrees with 24 levels. Most models in other countries also have resolutions coarser than the CCSM model, with the notable exception of the Japanese groups. We therefore retained the original wording.

COMMENT:P. 8, top: Perhaps it could be mentioned that very recent work on CRMs will be covered later in the report.

RESPONSE: This is a good suggestion. We revised the text as recommended in an early revision after receiving the review. The reference was subsequently deleted inadvertently in a later edit and will be restored in the final draft.

COMMENT:P. 10, bottom: It is stated here that these ocean models have resolution of “about 1/3 of a degree at the equator”. However, this is not a complete portrayal, and it should be mentioned that usually these models have increasing resolution in the equatorial tropics usually between about 5N and 5S

RESPONSE: A sentence was added at line 29, page 26 of the PRD that corrects this omission.

COMMENT:P. 18, middle: When talking about the “bucket”, it should be mentioned that the so-called bucket is actually meant to represent a physical quantity, namely field capacity of the soil

RESPONSE: The definition was added in the paragraph that begins on line 11, page 43 of the PRD.

COMMENT:P. 26, bottom: This should read “IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)” RESPONSE: The omission of the word “Report”, in the sentence, unfortunately, remains in the current PRD on page 45. This will be corrected in the next version. COMMENT:P. 27, bottom: This discussion is at best inaccurate in implying that modeling groups “engineer” a particular value of climate sensitivity. The particularly regrettable sentence is: “Especially if one is willing to compromise on some measures of fitness, one can control the models’ sensitivity to some extent (ref to Hadley center)”. No reputable modeling group I am aware of does this. In fact, this discussion of modeling groups that “hold various views on the most likely value of climate sensitivity, but rarely with much conviction [sic]” is outdated given the analysis of equilibrium climate sensitivity in Ch. 10 of the IPCC AR4 where a best estimate of actual climate sensitivity is 3.0C, with a likely range of 2.0 to 4.5C. Modeling groups end up with climate sensitivity of their model at the end of their model development process. To imply that somehow groups tune their climate sensitivity at the outset is inaccurate, and, to the best of my knowledge, is simply not true. This falls into the category of speculation and is not appropriate in a CCSP report. In fact, what is implied on p. 27 (that modeling groups “cheat”) is directly refuted by description of an actual model development process on P.

29 where indeed climate sensitivity was an outcome of model development, not an a priori goal. I suggest the authors avoid speculation on model developers’ ethics, and stick to a discussion of the facts regarding current assessment of climate sensitivity as given, for example, in the IPCC AR4.

RESPONSE: This section has been revised and the somewhat provocative language removed. The section titled “Component coupling and coupled model evaluation” that began on page 27 and continues through page 28 of the Reviewer’s Draft has been shortened and rewritten in the PRD. The new text begins on page 45. An improved discussion of model tuning and evaluation gives significant insight into the model development process. The subject of sensitivity is entirely contained in Chapter IV.

COMMENT:P. 30, near bottom: The authors use the term “transient climate sensitivity”. This is incorrect. The actual term in common usage (see the TAR and the AR4) is “transient climate response”, or TCR.

RESPONSE: The term “transient climate response” is used in the sensitivity section that begins on page 72. The text cited by the reviewer was contributed by GFDL and was not changed in the PDR (line 6 page 48), as it is a description of their model development process. We will verify with the contributors for the appropriate language before the next draft.

COMMENT:P. 32-37: This section, titled “reductive vs. holistic evaluation of models” sits uneasily in this report. I suggest it be revised to reflect current usage of terminology and common practice. What is actually described here, more or less, are model sensitivity experiments, and this term is commonly used in the field. In fact, this section is overly long and could be reduced by at least a factor of two. A simple discussion of

the methodology of sensitivity experiments where various factors are altered in systematic ways to assess model response and the role of physical processes could be summarized in a page or two. A lot of this arcane discussion complicates a fairly simple procedure commonly used to study processes and responses in climate models. Also, value judgments such as “hidden behind the surface of this seemingly unremarkable time series is the profound imprint of these variations on economies and societies, in this case especially the stark human suffering associated with the drought period in the 70s and

80s” strikes me as inappropriate in a CCSP report on climate science. Additionally, the discussion at the bottom of p. 36 confuses model evaluation with model analysis that occurs after model development.

RESPONSE: This section was completely rewritten and integrated into the model evaluation section (page 53 of the PRD). It illuminates some of the tradeoffs required in climate model development that are mostly unknown outside of the modeling community. We believe that this information is important to those who my apply climate models or use their results.

COMMENT:P. 41, section titled “idealized climate simulations”: I suggest this section be revised such that it reflects a more appropriate title for this section, namely “climate model response metrics”. Then a simple discussion of the two main metrics, namely equilibrium climate sensitivity and transient climate response, would then follow. RESPONSE: We appreciate the reviewer’s comment, but did not make the suggested change. The simulations are idealized, and we believe the current title is appropriate. Furthermore, we have included a discussion on model metrics in the model evaluation section, and suggested title might be confusing to some readers.

COMMENT:P. 42, near bottom: The authors have used a word here that is not common usage to my knowledge: “paleocalibrate”. Such inventions should be discouraged in a CCSP report that reflects current practice and terminology, unless use of this word has slipped past me. If it is in common usage, perhaps the authors could provide a few substantiating references. In fact, this section should stress that paleoclimate simulations are an important part of model evaluation, since it is a severe test of a climate model to be able to simulate a past climate accurately.

RESPONSE: We appreciate the reviewer’s perspective, however, we believe this is a question of style. The word is used in quotation marks, which implies that it is not a commonly used term. Its use is appropriate when used in the context of the paragraph (line 14 page 60 of the PRD). We will reconsider this point again in the next edit. COMMENT:P. 43, near top: In a discussion of “numerical downscaling”, the method of statistical downscaling should be mentioned

RESPONSE: This has been noted in the first paragraph of Chapter III (line 7, page 61of the PRD), where we introduce statistical downscaling as an alternative to downscaling by numerical simulation.

COMMENT:P. 43, about half way down: It is stated here that RCMs “require lateral boundary conditions from observations”. However, the application being discussed here is when RCMs are embedded in AOGCMs, in which case the RCMs require lateral boundary conditions from the global model in which they are embedded RESPONSE: Simulation with observation-based boundary conditions is important for segregating intrinsic RCM error from errors supplied by a GCM through the lateral boundary conditions. The second paragraph of Chatper III was modified to include this point (line 23, page 61 of the PRD).

COMMENT:P. 44, top: An important recent modeling study with a global 20 km model should be described here: Oouchi, K., J. Yoshimura, H. Yoshimura, R. Mizuta, S. Kusunoki, and A. Noda, 2006: Tropical cyclone climatology in a global-warming climate as simulated in a 20km-mesh global atmospheric model: Frequency and wind intensity analyses. J. Met. Soc. Japan, 84, 259-276.

RESPONSE: On line 26, page 66 of the PRD, the citation was added in the discussion about the importance of targeting mesoscale phenomena for regional simulation. COMMENT:P. 52: Somewhere here the authors should discuss the prospects and obstacles involved with two-way nesting with an RCM embedded in an AOGCM, with the AOGCM forcing the RCM, and the RCM giving information back to the AOGCM, and so on.

RESPONSE: This area of work is still very exploratory. We note that some have been attempting it in the second paragraph of Chapter III (line 23, page 61 of the PRD). Because this work has been so limited, we do not feel it warrants extensive discussion beyond this point in this document.

COMMENT:P. 56, near top: The authors err here in not using current terminology. They use the term “equilibrium warming”, but the TAR and AR4, in assessing the literature on this topic for the past 10 years or so, use the term “equilibrium climate sensitivity”. This CCSP report should be consistent with that usage and change “equilibrium warming” to “equilibrium climate sensitivity” everywhere in this report. RESPONSE: The term “equilibrium warming” is explicitly defined on page 73 of the PRD and is used consistently in the text that follows. We will reconsider the terminology in the next version.

COMMENT:p. 56, middle: The authors need to include the recent assessment of equilibrium climate sensitivity from the IPCC AR4, Ch. 10.

RESPONSE: A reference to the range of sensitivity found in the CMIP3 archive was added in the paragraph that begins on line 1 page 75 of the PRD. The AR4 report was not available for citation at the time the section was rewritten, but is now. An appropriate citation will be added in the next revision.

COMMENT:P. 59-60-61-62: See comment immediately above; this entire discussion needs to be updated and replaced given the AR4 assessment of equilibrium climate sensitivity following multiple lines of evidence from a host of models and observational studies (see AR4, Ch. 10)

RESPONSE: As noted above, the AR4 report was not available for citation at the time the section was rewritten, but is now. An appropriate discussion and citation will be added in the next revision.

COMMENT:P. 65 and elsewhere: This draft perpetuates terminology that the WGCM

is trying to correct, and I suggest the authors follow their request to call the multi-model dataset at PCMDI the “CMIP3 multi-model dataset assessed in the IPCC AR4”, in place of the “AR4 coupled models” (here and throughout the report)

RESPONSE: We have attempted to change the description of the multi-model dataset from AR4 to CMIP3 throughout the report, although a few references to AR4 remain. These will be corrected and the language will be consistent in the next draft. COMMENT:P. 66, top: Somewhere here the authors should discuss results from a major project to assess cloud forcing called CFMIP (e.g. Webb M.J., C.A. Senior, D.M.H. Sexton, W.J. Ingram, K.D. Williams, M.A. Ringer, B.J. McAvaney, R. Colman, B.J. Soden, R. Gudgel, T. Knutson, S. Emori, T. Ogura, Y. Tsushima, N. Andronova, B. Li, I. Musat, S. Bony and K.E. Taylor, 2006: On the contribution of local feedback mechanisms to the range of climate sensitivity in two GCM ensembles. Clim. Dyn.27 (1): 17-38 doi:10.1007/s00382-006-0111-2.)

RESPONSE: We agree. The cloud feedback discussion was revised and appropriate references added, stating at line 8, page 78 of the PRD.

尊重的素材

尊重的素材（为人处世） 思路 人与人之间只有互相尊重才能友好相处 要让别人尊重自己，首先自己得尊重自己 尊重能减少人与人之间的摩擦 尊重需要理解和宽容 尊重也应坚持原则 尊重能促进社会成员之间的沟通 尊重别人的劳动成果 尊重能巩固友谊 尊重会使合作更愉快 和谐的社会需要彼此间的尊重 名言 施与人，但不要使对方有受施的感觉。帮助人，但给予对方最高的尊重。这是助人的艺术，也是仁爱的情操。—刘墉 卑己而尊人是不好的，尊己而卑人也是不好的。———徐特立 知道他自己尊严的人，他就完全不能尊重别人的尊严。———席勒 真正伟大的人是不压制人也不受人压制的。———纪伯伦 草木是靠着上天的雨露滋长的，但是它们也敢仰望穹苍。———莎士比亚 尊重别人，才能让人尊敬。———笛卡尔 谁自尊，谁就会得到尊重。———巴尔扎克 人应尊敬他自己，并应自视能配得上最高尚的东西。———黑格尔 对人不尊敬，首先就是对自己的不尊敬。———惠特曼

每当人们不尊重我们时，我们总被深深激怒。然而在内心深处，没有一个人十分尊重自己。———马克·吐温 忍辱偷生的人，绝不会受人尊重。———高乃依 敬人者，人恒敬之。———《孟子》 人必自敬，然后人敬之；人必自侮，然后人侮之。———扬雄 不知自爱反是自害。———郑善夫 仁者必敬人。———《荀子》 君子贵人而贱己，先人而后己。———《礼记》 尊严是人类灵魂中不可糟蹋的东西。———古斯曼 对一个人的尊重要达到他所希望的程度，那是困难的。———沃夫格纳 经典素材 1元和200元 （尊重劳动成果） 香港大富豪李嘉诚在下车时不慎将一元钱掉入车下，随即屈身去拾，旁边一服务生看到了，上前帮他拾起了一元钱。李嘉诚收起一元钱后，给了服务生200元酬金。 这里面其实包含了钱以外的价值观念。李嘉诚虽然巨富，但生活俭朴，从不挥霍浪费。他深知亿万资产，都是一元一元挣来的。钱币在他眼中已抽象为一种劳动，而劳动已成为他最重要的生存方式，他的所有财富，都是靠每天20小时以上的劳动堆积起来的。200元酬金，实际上是对劳动的尊重和报答，是不能用金钱衡量的。 富兰克林借书解怨 （尊重别人赢得朋友）

新闻评论的格式写法

新闻评论的格式写法 新闻评论的格式写法新闻评论的文体结构与其他新闻文体相比基本是一致的，它包括标题、导语、主体、结尾四个部分，而在具体写作新闻评论时，各个构成部分又有其独特的写法。1．引人注意的标题新闻评论的标题既可以标明论题的对象和范围，也可以直接提出评论的观点和主旨；总的要求是生动活泼、言简意赅，使标题成为引人耳目的招牌。首先，要巧用动词，强化动词在评论标题中的动态感和鲜活感。2005年11月4日《经济日报》的评论《扬起企业品牌之帆》，这篇评论的标题用动词“扬起”，既揭示出我国目前实施自主品牌的必要性，也展现了我国企业界创新品牌的信

心与决心，给人以昂扬向上的感2005年8月23日《人民日报》的评论标题是《匹夫不可夺志国难见气节》，运用了引用的否定式陈述句的标题能够直接给受众一个非常坦率的态度；疑问句式的标题使受众始终带着一种特定的悬念去思考。《文化产业呼唤”中国创造”》，其标题运用肯定式陈述句，非常鲜明地揭示了媒体所要表达的一种态度和观点；《不该误读”平民医院，’))，虽用表面否定的句式却表达了非常干脆的态度；《洋教材冲击了我们什么？》，这一个带着问号的标题首先就会给受众留下悬念：谁在用洋教材？到底怎么回事？带着种种谜团就会循文找答案了。依据评论的思想内容，善于调动不同的句式，能够造成一种特有的情感效果。评论的标题写作方法不止这些。只要能吸引受众、揭示评论的思想内容，就是好的评论标题。新闻评论标题的写作原则追求有个性、有创新，这样的评论标题才更具魅力。2．富有悬念的导语新闻评论的导语，即开头部分、

引论部分。导语的设计应始终以受众为着眼点，总的要求是：要把最能吸引受众兴趣、最能引起受众关注的事实、观点或问题放在前面。的主体由两个层次构成，一是老百姓对”平民医院” 的错误理解，二是一些地方政府主管部门对”平民医院”的误读。哪个程度更为严重呢？该评论指出：”百姓们对’平民医院’是对眼下’公立医院’就医门槛过高的无奈”，而一些地方政府主管部门也会误读”平民医院只能说明”政府服务功能的缺位”，而后者也是评论者在文中所要着重阐明的重点内容。前后两个层次之间形成一种必然的逐层递进的关系。③对比式。就是主体部分的事实材料及其所要表达的思想内容是相互对照的，通过对比的手法论述论题和观点，有力地证实某一论点的正确或谬误。2005年12月26日《人民日报》”人民论坛”发表的《在磨砺中成长》，主体部分在重点叙述洪战辉自强不息、顽强奋斗的先进事迹，评价其崇高的道德品质的同时，也对目前

那一刻我感受到了幸福_初中作文

那一刻我感受到了幸福 本文是关于初中作文的那一刻我感受到了幸福，感谢您的阅读！ 每个人民的心中都有一粒幸福的种子，当它拥有了雨水的滋润和阳光的沐浴，它就会绽放出最美丽的姿态。那一刻，我们都能够闻到幸福的芬芳，我们都能够感受到幸福的存在。 在寒假期间，我偶然在授索电视频道，发现(百家讲坛)栏目中大学教授正在解密幸福，顿然引起我的好奇心，我放下了手中的遥控器，静静地坐在电视前，注视着频道上的每一个字，甚至用笔急速记在了笔记本上。我还记得，那位大学教授讲到了一个故事：一位母亲被公司升职到外国工作，这位母亲虽然十分高兴，但却又十分无奈，因为她的儿子马上要面临中考了，她不能撇下儿子迎接中考的挑战，于是她决定拒绝这了份高薪的工作，当有人问她为什么放弃这么好的机会时，她却毫无遗憾地说，纵然我能给予儿子最贵的礼物，优异的生活环境，但我却无当给予他关键时刻的那份呵护与关爱，或许以后的一切会证明我的选择是正确的。听完这样一段故事，我心中有种说不出的感觉，刹那间，我仿拂感觉那身边正在包饺子的妈妈，屋里正在睡觉的爸爸，桌前正在看小说的妹妹给我带来了一种温馨，幸福感觉。正如教授所说的那种解密幸福。就要选择一个明确的目标，确定自已追求的是什么，或许那时我还不能完全诠释幸福。 当幸福悄悄向我走来时，我已慢慢明白，懂得珍惜了。 那一天的那一刻对我来说太重要了，原本以为出差在外的父母早已忘了我的生日，只有妹妹整日算着日子。我在耳边唠叨个不停，没想到当日我失落地回到家中时，以为心中并不在乎生日，可是眼前的一切，让我心中涌现的喜悦，脸上露出的微笑证明我是在乎的。

爸爸唱的英文生日快乐歌虽然不是很动听，但爸爸对我的那份爱我听得很清楚，妈妈为我做的长寿面，我细细的品尝，吃出了爱的味道。妹妹急忙让我许下三个愿望，嘴里不停的唠叨：我知道你的三个愿望是什么?我问：为什么呀!我们是一家人，心连心呀!她高兴的说。 那一刻我才真正解开幸福的密码，感受到了真正的幸福，以前我无法理解幸福，即使身边有够多的幸福也不懂得欣赏，不懂得珍惜，只想拥有更好更贵的，其实幸福比物质更珍贵。 那一刻的幸福就是爱的升华，许多时候能让我们感悟幸福不是名利，物质。而是在血管里涌动着的，漫过心底的爱。 也许每一个人生的那一刻，就是我们幸运的降临在一个温馨的家庭中，而不是降临在孤独的角落里。 家的感觉就是幸福的感觉，幸福一直都存在于我们的身边!

CoverLetter英文简历书写 模板

CoverLetter英文简历书写模板 Writing the Cover Letter Writing the Cover Letter What is A Cover Letter? What is A Cover Letter Writing: Invitation to find out Persuasive Writing: Invitation to find out more about you and land Targeted Response to A Job Description and/or a Particular organization and/or a Particular organization—— THESE QUESTIONS: Can you do the job? Can you do the job? Will you do the job? Will you do the job? Will you fit in? Will you fit Cover Letter Four Steps for Cover Letter Writing From https://www.sodocs.net/doc/8613601281.html, Writing From https://www.sodocs.net/doc/8613601281.html, 1. 1. Conduct Research on The Conduct Research on The Organization Organization 2. 2. Deconstruct the job or internship Deconstruct the job or internship description description 3. 3. Consolidate and prioritize the key Consolidate and prioritize the key requirements you have extracted requirements you have extracted 4. 4. Plug yourself into the organizational Plug yourself into the organizational and job requirements and job requirements The Job Description The Job Description Climate and Energy Program (CEP) Climate and Energy Program (CEP) Internship, WRI Internship, WRI Position Summary WRI's Climate and Energy Program (CEP) seeks a WRI's Climate and Energy Program (CEP) seeks a motivated, well motivated, well--organized, and detail organized, and detail--oriented oriented intern to support our climate change and energy intern to support our climate change and energy policy work. The successful candidate will support policy work. The successful candidate will support CEP staff in a wide variety of activities including CEP staff in a wide variety of activities including publications management, event coordination, publications management, event coordination, database management, financial management, database management, financial management, and other tasks related to general program and other tasks related to general program administration. administration. 1. Research: 1. Transport Climate, Energy and Transport Division Projects: Division Projects: ––COP COP--15: Countdown to Copenhagen 15: Countdown to Copenhagen ––U.S. Federal Climate Policy U.S. Federal Climate Policy ––International & U.S. Action International & U.S. Action ––Business & Markets Business & Markets ––Technology & Green Power Technology & Green Power ––Energy Security & Climate Change Energy Security & Climate Change ––Information & Analysis Tools Information & Analysis Tools 1. Research: 1. Research: World Resources Institute --18, 2009, the world will 18, 2009, the world will convene in Copenhagen, Denmark to create convene in Copenhagen, Denmark to create a new global climate agreement to reduce a new global climate agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the greenhouse gas emissions at the United United Nations Climate Change Conference Nations Climate Change Conference (COP (COP-- experts have been actively involved in WRI’s experts have been actively involved in the negotiations leading up to the negotiations leading up to COP COP--15 15 and and are analyzing various dimensions of a new are analyzing various dimensions of a new agreement, among them: Vulnerability and agreement, among them: Vulnerability and Adaptation; Adaptation; Forestry and Reduced Emissions Forestry and Reduced Emissions for Degradation and Deforestation (REDD); for Degradation and Deforestation (REDD); Technology and Technology Transfer; Technology

小学生新闻消息写法技巧

小学生新闻消息写法技巧 导读：消息的特点 1、短小精练：消息要短小精练，这是新闻写作的基本要求。就小记者采写新闻来说，写好短消息，便于迅速及时的报道新闻事实，同时也锻炼小记者的采写能力;就读者阅读新闻来说，它便于阅读。 2、语言生动简洁：消息的语言只有生动、简洁，才能吸引读者 3、“倒金字塔”结构：消息的写作是将最重要、最新鲜的事实写在新闻的最前面，按事实重要性程度和读者关注的程度先主后次的安排，内容越是重要的，读者越是感兴趣的'，越要往前安排，然后依次递减。这在新闻写作中称为“倒金字塔”结构。 二、消息导语的几种写作方法 1、叙述式导语的写作：就是直截了当地用客观事实说话，通过摘要或概括的方法，简明扼要地反映出新闻中最重要、最新鲜的事实，给人一个总的印象，以促其阅读全文。 2、描写式导语的写作：记者根据目击的情况，对新闻中所报道的主要事实，或者事实的某个有意义的侧面，作简练而有特色的描写，向读者提供一个形象，给人以生动具体的印象，这就是描写式导语的一般特点。一般用在开头部分，以吸引读者，增强新闻的感染力。 3、议论式导语的写作：往往采用夹叙夹议的方式，通过极有节制、极有分寸的评论，引出新闻事实。一般分为三种形式：评论式、引语式、设问句。

三、学会恰当运用新闻背景材料 背景材料在不少新闻中占据一定的位置，是新闻稿件中不可缺少的内容。交代背景应根据需要因稿而异，更要紧扣主题，还有交代背景时不宜太多，材料要写的生动活泼。 【小学生新闻消息写法技巧】 1.小学生新闻消息的写法技巧 2.新闻消息的写作方法 3.新闻通讯的写法 4.盘点新闻消息写作方法大全 5.2015年新闻时事评论的写法 6.有关将新闻稿改写为消息 7.2015新闻的写作基础知识：消息的写作 8.新闻宣传报道的格式与写法 上文是关于小学生新闻消息写法技巧，感谢您的阅读，希望对您有帮助，谢谢

关于我的幸福作文八篇汇总

关于我的幸福作文八篇汇总 幸福在每个人的心中都不一样。在饥饿者的心中，幸福就是一碗香喷喷的米饭；在果农的心中，幸福就是望着果实慢慢成熟；在旅行者的心中，幸福就是游遍世界上的好山好水。而在我的心中，幸福就是每天快快乐乐，无忧无虑；幸福就是朋友之间互相帮助，互相关心；幸福就是在我生病时，母亲彻夜细心的照顾我。 幸福在世间上的每个角落都可以发现，只是需要你用心去感受而已。 记得有一次，我早上出门走得太匆忙了，忘记带昨天晚上准备好的钢笔。老师说了：“今天有写字课，必须要用钢笔写字，不能用水笔。”我只好到学校向同学借了。当我来到学校向我同桌借时，他却说：“我已经借别人了，你向别人借吧！”我又向后面的同学借，可他们总是找各种借口说：“我只带了一枝。”问了三四个人，都没有借到，而且还碰了一鼻子灰。正当我急的像热锅上的蚂蚁团团转时，她递给了我一枝钢笔，微笑的对我说：“拿去用吧！”我顿时感到自己是多么幸福！在我最困难的时候，当别人都不愿意帮助我的时候，她向我伸出了援手。 幸福也是无时无刻都在身旁。 当我生病的时候，高烧持续不退时，是妈妈在旁边细心

的照顾我，喂我吃药，甚至一夜寸步不离的守在我的床边，直到我苏醒。当我看见妈妈的眼睛布满血丝时，我的眼眶在不知不觉地湿润了。这时我便明白我有一个最疼爱我的妈妈，我是幸福的！ 幸福就是如此简单！不过，我们还是要珍惜眼前的幸福，还要给别人带来幸福，留心观察幸福。不要等幸福悄悄溜走了才发现，那就真的是后悔莫及了！ 这就是我拥有的幸福，你呢？ 悠扬的琴声从房间里飘出来，原来这是我在弹钢琴。优美的旋律加上我很强的音乐表现力让一旁姥爷听得如醉如痴。姥爷说我是幸福的，读了《建设幸福中国》我更加体会到了这一点。 儿时的姥爷很喜欢读书，但当时家里穷，据姥爷讲那时上学可不像现在。有点三天打鱼两天晒网，等地里农活忙了太姥爷就说：“别去念书了，干地里的活吧。”干活时都是牛马拉车，也没机器，效率特别低。还要给牲口拔草，喂草，拾柴火，看书都是抽空看。等农闲时才能背书包去学校，衣服更是老大穿了，打补丁老二再接着穿，只有盼到过年时才有能换上件粗布的新衣服。写字都是用石板，用一次擦一次，那时还没有电灯，爱学习的姥爷在昏暗的煤油灯下经常被灯火不是烧了眉毛就是燎了头发。没有电灯更没有电视，没有电视更没有见过钢琴，只知道钢琴是贵族家用的。

分享两篇SCI发表的经历(cover letter、response letter)

分享两篇SCI发表的经历 三年前对于我来说SCI就是天书一样，在我踏进博士的门槛后我以为自己进入了地狱，也纠结也彷徨，整天刷虫友们对于博士、SCI的帖子，我选择了虫友们鼓励的那一部分来激励自己继续前行。我告诉自己坚持就是胜利，当然那是积极的坚持。在好几月之前就有这个想法，今天早上收到第二篇的接收通知后，我便想今天一定要在小木虫上谢谢那些给予我帮助的虫友们。 话不多说，我把自己这两篇投稿的经历与大家共享，希望能给大家带来一点点用处。 第一篇发表在Fitoterapia Cover letter Dear Editor Verotta: We would like to submit the manuscript entitled "××××××题目" by ××××××所有作者姓名which we wish to be considered for publication in Journal of Fitoterapia. All authors have read and approved this version of the article, and due care has been taken to ensure the integrity of the work. Neither the entire paper nor any part of its content has been published or has been accepted elsewhere. It is not being submitted to any other journal. We believe the paper may be of particular interest to the readers of your journal as it is the first time of ××××××研究的精华所在 Thank you very much for your reconsidering our revised manuscript for potential publication in Fitoterapia. We are looking forward to hearing from you soon. Correspondence should be addressed to Jinhui Yu at the following address, phone and fax number, and email address. 地址、学院、学校名称 Phone: + 86×××××× Fax number: + 86571××××××

新闻稿的写法及范文

1、新闻要素：不可忽略5W1H。（Who、What、When、Where、Why、How） 2、新闻构成：题、文、图、表。 3、题：简要、突出、吸引人。 4、文：导语100至200字：开宗明义，人事时地物。 5、主体300至500字：深入浅出，阐扬主旨。 6、结语100字：简洁有力，强调该新闻的意 义与影响，或预告下阶段活动。7、图：视需要加入有助于读者理解的图片。 8、表：视需要加入有助于读者理解的表格。9、写作要律：具有新闻价值、正确的格式、动人的标题。简洁切要的内容、平易友善的叙述、高度可读性、篇 幅以1至2页为宜（一页尤佳）。写作技巧：清晰简洁、段落分明、使用短句、排版清爽。切忌偏离事实、交代不清、内容空洞。一篇好的新闻稿除了必须具有 新闻价值、把握主诉求与正确的格式外，行文应力求简洁切要，叙述应有事实基础，文稿标题则以简要、突出、吸引人为原则，用字要避免冷僻艰深，以提高文 稿的可读性。此外，篇幅也不宜长篇大论，一般以1至2页为原则，必要时可以加入图表，增加文稿的专业性，切忌内容空洞、语意不清、夸大不实。 倒金字塔结构是绝大多数客观报道的写作规则，被广泛运用到严肃刊物的写作 中，同时也是最为常见和最为短小的新闻写作叙事结构。内容上表现在在一篇新闻中，先是把最重要、最新鲜、最吸引人的事实放在导语中，导语中又往往是将 最精彩的内容放在最前端；而在新闻主体部分，各段内容也是依照重要性递减的 顺序来安排。犹如倒置的金字塔，上面大而重，下面小而轻。此种写作方式是目 前媒体常用的写作方式，亦即将新闻中最重要的消息写在第一段，或是以「新闻提要」的方式呈现在新闻的最前端，此种方式有助于媒体编辑下标题，亦有助于阅听人快速清楚新闻重点。基本格式（除了标题）是：先在导语中写一个 新闻事件中最有新闻价值的部分（新闻价值通俗来讲就是新闻中那些最突出，最

小学生作文《感悟幸福》范文五篇汇总

小学生作文《感悟幸福》范文五篇 小草说,幸福就是大地增添一份绿意;阳光说,幸福就是撒向人间的温暖;甘露说,幸福就是滋润每一个生命。下面是为大家带来的有关幸福650字优秀范文，希望大家喜欢。 感悟幸福650字1 生活就像一部壮丽的交响曲，它是由一篇一篇的乐章组成的，有喜、有怒、有哀、有乐。每一个人都有自己丰富多彩的生活，我也有自己的生活。我原本以为，吃可口的牛排，打电脑游戏，和朋友开心玩乐就是幸福。可是，我错了，幸福并不仅仅如此。 记得有一次，我放学回到家里放下书包就拿起一包饼干来吃。吃着吃着，突然我觉得牙齿痛了起来，而且越来越痛，痛得我连饼干也咬不动了。我放下饼干，连忙去拿了一面镜子来看。原来这又是那一颗虫牙在“作怪”。“哎哟哟，哎哟哟，痛死我了……”我不停地说着。渐渐地，那牙疼得越来越厉害，疼得我坐立不安，直打滚。后来在妈妈的陪伴下去了医院，治好了那颗虫牙。跨出医院大门时，我觉得心情出奇的好，天空格外的蓝，路边的樟树特别的绿，看什么都顺眼，才猛然一悟，幸福是简单而平凡的，身体健康就是一种幸福! 这学期我发现我的英语退步了，我决定要把这门功课学好，于是，我每天回

家做完作业后，都抽出半小时时间复习英语，在课上也听得特别认真，一遇到不懂的题目主动请教老师。经过一段时间的努力，终于，在上次考试的时候，我考了97分。妈妈表扬了我，我心里美滋滋的。我明白了经过自己的努力享受到成功的喜悦，这也是一种幸福。 …… 每个人都无一例外的渴望幸福。不同的人有不同的感受，其实，幸福就是那种能在平凡中寻找欢乐、能在困境中找到自信的一种心境。同学们，幸福其实很简单，就在我们的身边，触手可及。用心去认真地品味吧，它一直未曾离开我们身边! 感悟幸福650字2 有的人认为幸福就是腰缠万贯，有的人认为幸福就是找到意中人，“采菊东篱下，悠然见南山”是陶渊明对邪恶幸福，“从明天起做一个幸福人，喂马、劈柴、周游世界。从明天起，关心蔬菜和粮食，我有一所房子，面朝大海，春暖花开。”这是海子的幸福。一千种人就有一千种对幸福的理解。 我对幸福的理解就是幸福使简单而平凡的，是无处不在的! 我的牙疼得奇怪而顽强不是这颗牙疼就是那颗牙疼;不是吃冷的疼就是吃热

英文回复信范例ResponseLetter

Dear Editors and Reviewers, Thank you for your letter and comments on our manuscript titled “Temporal variability in soil moisture after thinning in semi-arid Picea crassifolia plantations in northwestern China” (FORECO_2017_459). These comments helped us improve our manuscript, and provided important guidance for future research. We have addressed the editor’s and the reviewers’comments to the best of our abilities, and revised text to meet the Forest Ecology and Management style requirements. We hope this meets your requirements for a publication. We marked the revised portions in red and highlighted them yellow in the manuscript. The main comments and our specific responses are detailed below: Editor: Please explain how the results in this paper are significantly different from those in Zhu, X., He, Z.B., Du, J., Yang, J.J., Chen, L.F., 2015. Effects of thinning on the soil moisture of the Picea crassifolia plantation in Qilian Mountains. Forest Research. 28, 55–60.)

关于以幸福为话题的作文800字记叙文5篇

关于以幸福为话题的作文800字记叙文5篇 ----WORD文档，下载后可编辑修改---- 下面是作者为各位家长学生收集整理的作文（日记、观后感等）范本，欢迎借鉴参考阅读，您的努力学习和创新是为了更美好的未来，欢迎下载！ 以幸福为话题的作文800字记叙文1： 那是我生病后的第三天，妈妈从早上五点就起来为我准备早点。她蹑手蹑脚地走着“针步”，下楼煮早点，“啪”的一声，妈妈打开了煤气。在拿肉丝，打鸡蛋的她全然不知我正躲在楼梯口“监视”着她的一举一动。不一会儿，蛋炒好了。 她开始切肉丝，一不小心，妈妈的手指切破皮了，鲜血正一滴一滴地流下来，为了不影响我的睡眠，她把手指放在嘴里吸了一下，坚持把剩下的肉丝切完。 此时的我，心中犹如打翻了五味瓶，眼里的泪像断了线的珍珠般掉了下来，我再也忍不住了，一个劲地冲到妈妈面前，她赶紧把手背了过去，生怕让我知道了什么。 她吃惊地问我：“妈妈太吵了，吵到你了?”“不，不，没有”她见我这么早起来就让我再回去补个觉。我关心地问：“妈，你的手没事吧?”她吱唔着说：“没事，擦破点皮，不碍事!”我仔细地帮她清洗了伤口，贴了一片创可贴。 吃饭时，妈妈一直地往我碗里夹肉，“孩子，病刚好，多吃点!”可是我见她始终都没吃一块肉。我也夹了两块放在她的碗里。“儿子懂事了，你自己快点吃吧!补身体要紧!”我冲她点点头笑了笑，“嗯。” 这就是幸福，一份简简单单的幸福!我祈祷这幸福能伴我成长。 以幸福为话题的作文800字记叙文2： 在我眼中，成长就是记录我们长大过程中一点一滴的小事情的，而幸福就在这点点滴滴中。 在我的成长记忆中，永不磨灭的是2017年11月的一天。妈妈要去云南，妈妈早上四点半要到指定地点集合，这么早，妈妈要两三点就起来，可是最近我咳嗽比较严重，所以天天给我煮萝卜汤喝。 “叮铃铃，叮铃铃”闹钟叫了起来，把我从睡梦中吵醒，一醒来，去找妈妈，

投稿coverletter写法

Case 1 Dear Editor, We would like to submit the enclosed manuscript entitled "GDNF Acutely Modulates Neuronal Excitability and A-type Potassium Channels in Midbrain Dopaminergic Neurons", which we wish to be considered for publication in Nature Neuroscience. GDNF has long been thought to be a potent neurotrophic factor for the survival of midbrain dopaminergic neurons, which are degenerated in Parkinson’s disease. In this paper, we report an unexpected, acute effect of GDNF on A-type potassium channels, leading to a potentiation of neuronal excitability, in the dopaminergic neurons in culture as well as in adult brain slices. Further, we show that GDNF regulates the K+ channels through a mechanism that involves activation of MAP kinase. Thus, this study has revealed, for the first time, an acute modulation of ion channels by GDNF. Our findings challenge the classic view of GDNF as a long-term survival factor for midbrain dopaminergic neurons, and suggest that the normal function of GDNF is to regulate neuronal excitability, and consequently dopamine release. These results may also have implications in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Due to a direct competition and conflict of interest, we request that Drs. XXX of Harvard Univ., and YY of Yale Univ. not be considered as reviewers. With thanks for your consideration, I am Sincerely yours, case2 Dear Editor, We would like to submit the enclosed manuscript entitled "Ca2+-binding protein frequenin mediates GDNF-induced potentiation of Ca2+ channels and transmitter release", which we wish to be considered for publication in Neuron. We believe that two aspects of this manuscript will make it interesting to general readers of Neuron. First, we report that GDNF has a long-term regulatory effect on neurotransmitter release at the neuromuscular synapses. This provides the first physiological evidence for a role of this new family of neurotrophic factors in functional synaptic transmission. Second, we show that the GDNF effect is mediated by enhancing the expression of the Ca2+-binding protein frequenin. Further, GDNF and frequenin facilitate synaptic transmission by enhancing Ca2+ channel activity, leading to an enhancement of Ca2+ influx. Thus, this study has identified, for the first time, a molecular target that mediates the long-term, synaptic action of a neurotrophic factor. Our findings may also have general implications in the cell biology of neurotransmitter release. 某杂志给出的标准Sample Cover Letter Case 3 Sample Cover Letter Dear Editor of the : Enclosed is a paper, entitled "Mobile Agents for Network Management." Please accept it as a candidate for publication in the . Below are our responses to your submission requirements. 1. Title and the central theme of the article. Paper title: "Mobile Agents for Network Management." This study reviews the concepts of mobile agents and distributed network management system. It proposes a mobile agent-based implementation framework and creates a prototype system to demonstrate the superior performance of a mobile agent-based network over the conventional client-server architecture in a large network environment.

尊重议论文

谈如何尊重人尊重他人，我们赢得友谊；尊重他人，我们收获真诚；尊重他人，我们自己也 获得尊重；相互尊重，我们的社会才会更加和谐. ——题记 尊重是对他人的肯定，是对对方的友好与宽容。它是友谊的润滑剂，它是和谐的调节器， 它是我们须臾不可脱离的清新空气。“主席敬酒，岂敢岂敢？”“尊老敬贤，应该应该！”共和 国领袖对自己老师虚怀若谷，这是尊重；面对许光平女士，共和国总理大方的叫了一 声“婶婶”，这种和蔼可亲也是尊重。 尊重不仅会让人心情愉悦呼吸平顺，还可以改变陌生或尖锐的关系，廉颇和蔺相如便是 如此。将相和故事千古流芳:廉颇对蔺相如不满，处处使难，但蔺相如心怀大局，对廉颇相 当的尊重，最后也赢得了廉颇的真诚心，两人结为好友，共辅赵王，令强秦拿赵国一点办法 也没有。蔺相如与廉颇的互相尊重，令得将相和的故事千百年令无数后人膜拜。 现在，给大家举几个例子。在美国，一个颇有名望的富商在散步 时，遇到一个瘦弱的摆地摊卖旧书的年轻人，他缩着身子在寒风中啃着发霉的面包。富 商怜悯地将8美元塞到年轻人手中，头也不回地走了。没走多远，富商忽又返回，从地摊上 捡了两本旧书，并说：“对不起，我忘了取书。其实，您和我一样也是商人！”两年后，富商 应邀参加一个慈善募捐会时，一位年轻书商紧握着他的手，感激地说：“我一直以为我这一生 只有摆摊乞讨的命运，直到你亲口对我说，我和你一样都是商人，这才使我树立了自尊和自 信，从而创造了今天的业绩??”不难想像，没有那一 句尊重鼓励的话，这位富商当初即使给年轻人再多钱，年轻人也断不会出现人生的巨变， 这就是尊重的力量啊 可见尊重的量是多吗大。大家是不是觉得一个故事不精彩，不够明确尊重的力量，那再 来看下一个故事吧！ 一家国际知名的大企业，在中国进行招聘，招聘的职位是该公司在中国的首席代表。经 过了异常激烈的竞争后，有五名年轻人，从几千名应聘者中脱颖而出。最后的胜出者，将是 这五个人中的一位。最后的考试是一场面试，考官们都 作文话题素材之为人处世篇：尊重 思路 人与人之间只有互相尊重才能友好相处 要让别人尊重自己，首先自己得尊重自己 尊重能减少人与人之间的摩擦 尊重需要理解和宽容 尊重也应坚持原则 尊重能促进社会成员之间的沟通 尊重别人的劳动成果 尊重能巩固友谊 尊重会使合作更愉快 和谐的社会需要彼此间的尊重 名言 施与人，但不要使对方有受施的感觉。帮助人，但给予对方最高的尊重。这是助人的艺 术，也是仁爱的情操。———刘墉 卑己而尊人是不好的，尊己而卑人也是不好的。———徐特立 知道他自己尊严的人，他就完全不能尊重别人的尊严。———席勒 真正伟大的人是不压制人也不受人压制的。———纪伯伦 草木是靠着上天的雨露滋长的，但是它们也敢仰望穹苍。———莎士比亚

新闻消息的写法

新闻写法——消息写作 各位同仁，大家下午好！今天我很荣幸坐在这里同大家一起学习探讨有关新闻的写作技巧，但愿我讲的内容对各位有点启发。分两部分：一是消息，二是通讯。 天下文章，总体来说，都是一个写什么、怎么写的问题。写什么不仅是内容，还有一个形式问题；怎么写是技术问题。新闻是文章种类中一种特殊的文体，怎么写又有它特别的规范。是不是不自由了呢？不是，规范只是一个大笼子，在笼子里可以自由飞翔。 新闻是思想的产物，是意识形态。不是纯客观，不可有闻必录。同时，新闻不是公文，不是法律，不是判决书。读者自由地接受新闻事实，自由地作出判断。新闻以事实形成舆论，左右社会，“人言可畏”，“千夫所指，不疾而亡。”新闻写作提高表达技巧十分重要。 在这里，我先介绍一下消息的写作，这是目前适用最广泛的一种新闻写作方式。对于我们这些从事新闻报道的基层通讯员来说，也是最常用的文体，最容易发稿见报的文体。困为通讯较消息篇幅长、覆盖面大，像我们基层的乡镇、县直单位，一般很难被上级新闻单位采用。 一、什么是消息。 1、消息的定义。消息，就是用最简要和迅速的手段报道最近发生事件的一种新闻宣传文体。也就是说新闻消息就是告诉人们发生了什么，报道最近发生的事实。狭义的新闻就是指消息，它是新闻体裁的重要形式，是报纸和广播电视新闻的主角，其它新闻报道如通讯、广播稿、新闻评论等是它的发展和补充。学会消息写作便意识着掌握了打新闻写作大门的钥匙。我们初学新闻的同志在看报读报时，看到的“本报讯、本刊讯、新华社南昌讯、据**社**讯”等开头的，都称之为消息，我们常说的“豆腐块”，任何一张报纸都有若干条消息。 2、消息的特点：（一）采写发稿迅速、及时，叙事直截了当，语言简洁明快，篇幅短小；（二）消息5W+1H，whe何时、where何地、who何人、what何事、why何故、how如何；（三）在结构上，消息一般由标题、导语、主体、背景和结尾五个部分组成，有“倒金字塔结构”与“非倒金字塔结构”两大类。 3、消息的种类：(一)动态消息：也称动态新闻，这种消息迅速、及时地报道国内国际的重大事件，报道社会主义建设中的新人新事、新气象、新成就、新经验。动态消息中有不少是简讯(短讯、简明新闻)，内容更加单一，文字更加精简，常常一事一讯，几行文字。(二)综合消息：也称综合新闻，指的是综合反映带有全局性情况、动向、成就和问题的消息报道。 (三)典型消息：也称典型新闻，这是对某一部门或某一单位的典型经验或成功做法的集中报道，用以带动全局，指导一般。(四)述评消息：也称新闻述评，它除具有动态消息的一般特征外，还往往在叙述新闻事实的同时，由作者直接发出一些必要的议论，简明地表示作者的观点。记者述评、时事述评就是其中的两种。 以上四类消息，以动态消息较易写作，大家可以经常练习写一些，从实践中提高新闻写作能力。