<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 20%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 13%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="6"><strong>COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC REVIEWERS</strong></td>
<td colspan="7"><strong>AUTHOR'S RESPONSE</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Comment</strong></p>
<p><strong>Number</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Reviewer</strong></p>
<p><strong>ID</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><strong>Chapter</strong></td>
<td><strong>Page</strong></td>
<td><strong>Line</strong></td>
<td><strong>Comment Text</strong></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Acknowledged,</strong></p>
<p><strong>but no further</strong></p>
<p><strong>response or revisions</strong></p>
<p><strong>are required</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Revisions have</strong></p>
<p><strong>been incorporated</strong></p>
<p><strong>as suggested in the</strong></p>
<p><strong>comment</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Agree, but see</strong></p>
<p><strong>"Notes on</strong></p>
<p><strong>Response"</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Agree, but</strong></p>
<p><strong>elaboration is</strong></p>
<p><strong>precluded by length</strong></p>
<p><strong>limitations</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Disagree; see</strong></p>
<p><strong>"Notes on</strong></p>
<p><strong>Response"</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Beyond scope of</strong></p>
<p><strong>report/chapter</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><strong>Notes on Response</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>E-1</p>
<p>Ref: G-11</p></td>
<td>04</td>
<td><p>General</p>
<p>Chapter 3</p></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>“in press” or “submitted” references. If the articles or books have
already undergone peer review and are in their final form, these
references should be assumed to be published peer-reviewed literature.
If the articles or books are not in final peer-reviewed form, the
authors should fully comply with the Guidelines for approval and
materials availability</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Unclear as to which references are being addressed by this comment.
We will follow the guidelines as noted.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>E-2</p>
<p>Ref: G-2</p></td>
<td>04</td>
<td><p>General</p>
<p>Chapter 3</p></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p>Grey literature sources - newspapers, the trade press, websites,
advocacy documents, position papers or research plans for the
government’s conservation partners– which may not have been
peer-reviewed,</p>
<p>The authors should fully comply with the Guidelines for approval and
materials availability.</p>
<p>To ensure clarity on the part of readers, we request that the authors
carefully differentiate in the text or in the list of references their
use of non-peer-reviewed sources.</p></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>See comment above. We will follow the guidelines as noted.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>E-3</p>
<p>Ref: G-13</p></td>
<td>04</td>
<td><p>General</p>
<p>Chapter 3</p></td>
<td>124</td>
<td>2753</td>
<td>Inclusion of information through personal reference may also be
problematic. Would this be more appropriately sourced as a SWERA
position paper?</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Reference changed in the text and list of references.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>E-4</td>
<td>07</td>
<td>Chapter 3</td>
<td>62</td>
<td>1344</td>
<td>An analysis of a 10 km resolution, global, 25 year, 3 hour component
of the NASA ISCCP data has just been funded by NASA (September 2007) (<a
href="http://nspires.nasaprs.com/">http://nspires.nasaprs.com</a>) and
will greatly alleviate the spatial resolution limitation. This is the
ISCCP B1 dataset, which was archived throughout ISCCP since the 1980’s
but has not been practical to process until recent increases in data
storage.</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Agree, but I am not currently aware of any plans to upgrade the
NASA/SSE to the higher resolution. Also, unable to find a reference to
this work from the web site provided in the comment. I have added a
two-sentence footnote to possible future upgrades to the SSE.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>E-5</td>
<td>07</td>
<td>Chapter 3</td>
<td>68</td>
<td>1498</td>
<td><p>Add a new paragraph.</p>
<p>It should be noted that global reanalysis products continue to evolve
and improve beyond the ~200 km resolution NCEP reanalysis shown in Table
1, driven by global change research needs. These products should be
valuable for wind resource assessment. For instance, NASA has begun a
Modern Era Retrospective-Analysis for Research and Applications (MERRA -
<a
href="http://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/research/merra/intro.php">http://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/research/merra/intro.php</a>),
covering 1979 to present at roughly 50 km spatial and hourly temporal
resolution. European (e.g. ERA-40; <a
href="http://www.ecmwf.int/research/era/index.html">http://www.ecmwf.int/research/era/index.html</a>)
and Japanese (e.g. JRA-25 <a
href="http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/113522789/PDFSTART">http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/113522789/PDFSTART</a>)
reanalyses are also valuable contributions. NOAA has created the North
American Regional Reanalysis (NARR - <a
href="http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/mmb/rreanl/">http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/mmb/rreanl/</a>),
a 25+ year analysis over North America.</p></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Paragraph has been added, with some modifications to the way the web
sites are referenced.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>