<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 19%" />
</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>ES-1</p>
<p>Ref: G-11</p></td>
<td>04</td>
<td>Executive Summary</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><strong>X</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Each Lead Author will review their references and make the necessary
changes per SAP guidelines.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>ES-2</p>
<p>Ref: G-12</p></td>
<td>04</td>
<td>Executive Summary</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><strong>X</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Each Lead Author will review their references and make the necessary
changes per SAP guidelines.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>ES -3</p>
<p>Ref G-2</p></td>
<td>04</td>
<td><p>General</p>
<p>Executive Summary</p></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>In some cases, the overview of the chapters in the executive summary
might be more productively relocated to the individual chapters.</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>X</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td>The overview in the Executive Summary borrows directly from the
chapters.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>ES-4</p>
<p>Ref : G-6</p></td>
<td>04</td>
<td><p>General</p>
<p>Executive Summary</p></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p>Each of the five case studies provides a reasonable example of
how DSTs are used, what data they rely on, and what some of their
limitations are.</p>
<p>The Executive Summary seems far too generic in describing the content
of the document. Each of the DST chapters shows how climate change data
might be used to forecast changes in a particular sector, and includes a
good discussion of limitations.</p></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>X</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td>Other reviewers have suggested just the opposite: that the Executive
Summary does not adequately discuss limitations. We have reviewed the
Executive Summary in an attempt to address these differences among
reviewers and have felt that we needed to leave much of the discussion
as is, to accommodate both perspectives.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>ES-5</p>
<p>Ref : G-7</p></td>
<td>04</td>
<td><p>General</p>
<p>Executive Summary</p></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>But the Executive Summary doesn’t adequately capture the general
principles of operation, nor the general limitations that constrain all
DSTs. That discussion would be very helpful.</td>
<td><mark></mark></td>
<td><mark></mark></td>
<td><mark></mark></td>
<td><mark></mark></td>
<td><strong>X</strong></td>
<td><mark></mark></td>
<td><p>We think the “General Observations” section discusses operational
and other limitations not only on the DSTs but also on the problems with
Earth observation data as information used by the DSTs. We have re-read
this section with the reviewer’s comment in mind; without an example or
more specific illustration of what the reviewer has in mind, we were
unable to add details to this section.</p>
<p><mark></mark></p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>ES-6</p>
<p>Ref : G-8</p></td>
<td>04</td>
<td><p>General</p>
<p>Executive Summary</p></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>There is also some repetition in the Exec Summ that could be
eliminated.</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>X</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Done.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>ES-7</p>
<p>Ref : G-9</p></td>
<td>04</td>
<td><p>General</p>
<p>Executive Summary</p></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Although I recognize the intimate relationship between climate
change science and Earth observations, the Exec Summary reads like a
USGEO document rather than a CCSP document.</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>X</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td>The reviewer doesn’t illustrate what is meant by this concern; we
are unable to address it.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>ES-8</p>
<p>Ref :G-10</p></td>
<td>04</td>
<td><p>General</p>
<p>Executive Summary</p></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>There should be more emphasis on developing these tools to deal with
climate change.</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>X</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td>Emphasis such as this occurs in the individual chapters.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>ES-9</p>
<p>Ref : G-15</p></td>
<td>04</td>
<td><p>General</p>
<p>Executive Summary</p></td>
<td>4</td>
<td>94</td>
<td>Please insert “currently” after “organizations.”</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>X</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td>This bullet point is from the SAP itself so we don’t feel we should
change it.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>ES-10</p>
<p>Ref: G -21</p></td>
<td>08</td>
<td><p>General</p>
<p>Executive Summary</p></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Given the title of this SAP it was very surprising to me to see what
the content was. There are many huge assumptions. The tools being used
require input from somewhere. To use for future planning in climate
change this has to come from climate forecasts or projections. The old
saying GIGO: garbage in garbage out applies, and does not seem to be
addressed.</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>X</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td>The chapters provide detail about these assumptions and issues.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>ES-11</p>
<p>Ref: G-25</p></td>
<td>08</td>
<td>Executive Summary</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>I would argue that climate projections are not useful for any of
these tools and that climate forecasts do not exist.</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>X</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td>The authors point out in their chapters the problems and challenges
associated with this concern.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>ES -12</p>
<p>Ref: G-26</p></td>
<td>08</td>
<td>Executive Summary</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>In short I do not see the connection between the title of the SAP
and the content that focuses on case studies with particular tools.</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>X</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td>The Introduction provides the rational for the case studies; the
authors have followed the guidelines in the SAP prospectus.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>ES-13</td>
<td>01</td>
<td>Executive Summary</td>
<td>18</td>
<td></td>
<td><p>The reference to the US Committee responsible for GEOSS should be
corrected. Table 3 identifies the National Global Earth Observations as
"NSTC CENR U.S. Interagency Working Group on Earth Observations."</p>
<p>The United States Group on Earth Observations (US GEO) was
established in March 2005 as a standing subcommittee of the National
Science and Technology Council Committee on Environment and Natural
Resources to replace the ad hoc Interagency Working Group on Earth
Observations. Consequently, that section should be: National Science and
Technology Council Committee on Environment and Natural Resources
Subcommittee The United States Group on Earth Observations
(USGEO)</p></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>X</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Done</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>ES-14</td>
<td>02</td>
<td>Executive Summary</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>84-87 &amp; Tables 1&amp;2</td>
<td>It would be useful to have a little more synthesis/ analysis of the
various decision-making perspectives indicated.</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>X</strong></td>
<td><p>1.The Executive Summary is supposed to be written for the
non-scientist and therefore, in a non-technical sense. Including
synthesis and/or analysis in the Executive Summary would make the
Executive Summary more technical than it needs to be.</p>
<p>2. It is not in the scope of the SAP-5.1 Prospectus to perform
synthesis/analysis for this document let alone in the Executive Summary.
We were</p>
<p>asked to characterize and evaluate only.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>ES-15</td>
<td>02</td>
<td>Executive Summary</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>It is not clear what the goals for the different applications are,
and therefore it is not clear what type of data/ information is needed
(temperature, wind, rainfall, water turbidity, sea level, wave force,
soil acidity, -- the possibilities are infinite), on what time horizon
(ranging from historical/immediate/emergency to 50+ years for
infrastructure), and with what level of accuracy/ certainty.</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>X</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td>Details are in the individual chapters and are quite complex;
therefore, Executive Summary does not go to this level of detail.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>ES-16</td>
<td>02</td>
<td>Executive Summary</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>While some of this detail is provided in the examples in the
chapters, it is hard to quite grasp what is missing (for example there
is no discussion of planning/designing infrastructure to last several
decades – which is a very important regional application) without this
up front synthesis/ analysis.</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>X</strong></td>
<td>While long-lived infrastructure is important, this issue is outside
the scope of the SAP guidelines</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>ES-17</td>
<td>02</td>
<td>Executive Summary</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>Figure 1</td>
<td>Design decisions (individual designs and/or design standards of
roads, bridges, and other infrastructure etc.) are also important and
not clearly included in this figure</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>X</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td>Figure 1 is direcly from the SAP 5.1 Prospectus.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>ES-18</td>
<td>06</td>
<td>Executive Summary</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>84-85</td>
<td>The text states that the SAP “describes an illustrative set of DSTs
in areas selected from a number of areas deemed nationally important by
NASA …” What is the rationale for only choosing “areas deemed nationally
important by NASA”?</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>X</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td>These areas were suggested in the SAP.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>ES-19</td>
<td>06</td>
<td>Executive Summary</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>105</td>
<td>The text states that “The catalog is an exciting first step …” I
believe the word “exciting” is subjective and should be deleted so that
the text reads: “The catalog is a first step …”</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>X</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Rewritten as recommended.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>ES-20</td>
<td>06</td>
<td>Executive Summary</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>162-164</td>
<td>The sentence reads: “The Production Estimate and Crop Assessment
Division (PECAD) of the US Department of Agriculture, FAS is the world’s
most extensive and longest …” This sentence makes no sense. Please
consider rewriting the sentence to convey the author’s thought.</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>X</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Text rewritten.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>ES-21</td>
<td>06</td>
<td>Executive Summary</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>203-205</td>
<td>The text beginning on line 203 reads: “PECAD may also be influenced
by, as well as a barometer of climate-induced changes in …” This
sentence makes no sense. Please consider rewriting this sentence to
convey the author’s thought to the reader.</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>X</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Text wording clarified; the awkward sentence has now been split into
two more direct sentences.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>ES-22</td>
<td>06</td>
<td>Executive Summary</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>287-289</td>
<td>This text states that “Use of DDSPL is also limited by restrictions
on the dissemination of detailed information on the distribution of
human disease.” It might be useful to the reader to expand on this
statement. For example, what is the nature of the restriction? Is this
restriction a barrier that can be overcome?</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>X</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Sentence deleted; further discussion of this point is left to the
detailed discussion in the relevant chapter.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>ES-23</td>
<td>06</td>
<td>Executive Summary</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>334</td>
<td>The text states that “The estimates of potential impacts of climate
change on precipitation have been mixed, leading to …” What is meant by
the term “mixed”? Does it mean “inconclusive,” “unreliable”? Please
consider using another term to convey the author’s thought.</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>X</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Changed to “inconclusive.”</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>ES-24</td>
<td>06</td>
<td>Executive Summary</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>340-341</td>
<td>The text beginning on line 340 reads: “Quality in-situ measurement
of wind and solar data suitable for application in HOMER are can have
uncertainties of less …” I believe the word “are” is unnecessary. Please
consider removing “are” from the text on these lines.</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>X</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Done.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Intro-1</td>
<td>06</td>
<td><p>Introduction</p>
<p>Chapter 4</p></td>
<td>19</td>
<td>452</td>
<td>The acronym for Decision Support System to Prevent Lyme Disease is
written as “DDSPL.” From looking at the first letter of each word, I
believe the acronym should read “DSSPL.” If my thinking is correct,
please consider updating this acronym.</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>X</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td>DDPSL, is the correct spelling.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>