Thursday, January 19, 2012


date: Tue Mar 2 14:29:33 2004
from: Phil Jones <>
subject: Re: Fwd: Climate Dynamics - decision letter
to: Anders Moberg <>

It would be good to meet re EMULATE in Nice. I will send an email to all to see who
will be there - and then we can decide on the best time either during the day or an
Work on the extremes paper sounds good. By the way I've just heard I was successful
the new 3-yr funding from USDoE. This will make it easier with reprints/colour etc with
this paper and the Clim Dyn one. I haven't got to move money from the grant to pay
for these as we can carry some over.
As for the MSLP data, it might also be good to show the MSLP for HadRM3P as well
as HadAM3P - both as anomalies from NCEP. What I would expect is that MSLP anomaly
for RM is much the same as AM. Then we can say things come from the driving model.
I think most of the reasons are due to the land surface scheme, which is the same in both
models and in HadCM3. I hope that the MSLP maps are all that are required except for the
wording changes for all other points made by the referees.
I'll talk to Marie to try and smooth things along. Internet connections here are slow
virtually all day. Best before 9am and become OK after 5pm. Students !
At 09:40 02/03/2004 +0100, you wrote:

Thanks for the data. I have written to Marie and asked her about how to get the data.
Still no connection though, but I have noticed that it quite often has not worked in the
last few months. The connections were much better when I started at CRU. Some changes
must have been made somewhere in the computing system. Once I get hold of the AM3 data,
I will produce the maps.
I also have done all the new figures and tables for the 1901-99 extremes paper and I am
working on revising the text. As regards the regional series, I reduced the number of
regions to only one - the Central European region (only using stations with data back to
1901). The region is small enough for being meaningful also for precip, and we avoid the
problem of subjectively defining different regions by simply saying that this region has
the highest density of stations with data covering the entire 20th century.
Booked hotel in Nice yesterday. Will stay there from the Sunday to Friday. Shall we make
some efforts to arrange a small EMULATE meeting for those who happen to be there?
At 17:02 2004-03-01 +0000, you wrote:

The attachment is NCEP averages for each of the 12 months for 1961-90. Global file,
need to select out the RM window. Should be on a 2.5 by 2.5 deg grid. Got this from
NCEP about 2 years ago.
As for HadAM3P, Marie says it should be on the alphas. If you have problems then
get in touch with Marie. We don't think anyone has just produced monthly mean maps.
I think this will be all you need to do.
Links might have been a problem earlier today, so retry before contacting Marie.
you could plot the difference from NCEP reality. Might need to miss Greenland out.
All the other comments should be doable by changing the words in the text. I'll be
all the next 3 weeks including this one if you want to send me a revised version and/or
a set of responses to the comments. As for diagrams, I expect if you made them large
Clim. Dynamics might then reduce them again.
At 13:55 01/03/2004 +0100, you wrote:

I agree that start working with HadAM3P might be a pain, but both reviewers wanted to
see something from it. I think one figure containing one map per season with MSLP
pressure biases averaged over 1961-90 would be enough. It would certainly take me some
time to do this, but it is of course not impossible. I just tried to connect to the
crua6 and crua4, but did not succeed. I should still have my account until end of April,
so it may just be a temporary connecting problem. In any case, whether the connection
works or not, I would need assistance with retrieving HadAM3P MSLP data. Has anyone in
CRU already extracted these for the RM3 geographical window? If MSLP data from 1961-90
reanalyses are already extracted for the RM3 window, that would of course also be great.
Could you check with those in CRU who might know more about this?
The other review comments seem quite easy to tackle. Concerning the Romainan stations,
maybe an email to some resposible person at the Romainan met service could confirm that
their data are OK. For the Swedish ones, the suggestion of cold air in valleys in winter
seems basically quite right. We just need to change the words a bit. It is not really a
model error, but an incapability of the model to reproduce the cold air in a shallow
layer near the ground in valleys. It is, however, probably not only a problem due to the
horizontal spatial resolution, but also likely due to the too coarse layer thickness of
the model atmosphere.
One way to come around the reviewers' suggestion to analyse the driving atmospheric
model in more detail, could be to say explicitly that this is simply beyond our scope.
Instead, our results point out some issues that should be analysed more in detail in the
near future. This should be something for the modellers to go ahead doing - and they
will do it better than I would.
If you could start checking in CRU if anything useful on HadAM3P MSLP biased alrady has
been done, then I will meanwhile try to address the other comments. When we have a
better idea of how much work it really is to analyse HadAM3P, then we can decide on
whether to make such an analysis or not.
At 10:59 2004-03-01 +0000, you wrote:

I've quickly read them as I have some meetings later today. They are positive, just
seem to want more explanations of the reasons. Going through more of HadAM3P will
be a pain - maybe we can get away with some circulation maps by seasons between
this model and reality. I suspect most of the problems come from the land surface
parameterization scheme.
The comments about the stations being wrong need to be squashed. All of Romania
can't be wrong.
We will need to emphasize that people just can't go and take RCM output without
through tests of the kind shown in the paper. Also B seems to have misunderstood what
were saying about the future.
Glad you had a good break !
At 09:06 01/03/2004 +0100, you wrote:

Back from the holidays, which were good. One of the emails that came in last week was
from Climate Dynamics. They are prepared to accept the paper. I have not read the
reviewers' comments yet, but I will have a look at them as soon as I have gone through
the other mails.

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 10:58:51 +0100
From: Elisa Manzini <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
Subject: Climate Dynamics - decision letter
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 tagged_above=-99.0 required=7.0 tests=BAYES_00
Dear Dr Moberg,
please find attached the decision cover letter and the reviews.
If it is not possible for you to read/print them, or if you need
a hard copy, please let me know.
With best regads,
Elisa Manzini
* Dr Elisa Manzini *
* National Institute for Geophysics and Volcanology *
* Via Donato Creti 12, 40128, Bologna, ITALY *
* Email: *

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email
UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email
UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email

No comments:

Post a Comment