Wednesday, March 14, 2012


date: Fri Feb 8 12:09:26 2008
from: Phil Jones <>
subject: RE: TP Water comment
to: "Palutikof, Jean" <>

You could add to polar with 'polar and high-elevation' as it doesn't
apply there very well either. The comment didn't allude to that, though.
So OK with what you plan to add.
We did have something in an earlier draft about Dai's PC2 but
it must have got pulled at some point.
PS Have just briefly replied to this email - said politely read the
IPCC reports! Said the usual IPCC assesses etc.... all the papers
we refer to have been peer-reviewed...
I'm supposed to help him peer review my papers ! Sent him a
couple as a starting point and said a good source of relevant
literature is the IPCC Reports!
Why email me? cc'd Susan - she's still in post for a few more months...
What is it with people with big email tails !

Professor Phil Jones:

I have been researching some of your publications. I just ran across this information which
I assume you have reviewed.
The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change in its most recent report in 2007 stated:
'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of
increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice,
and rising global average sea level.'
'Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century
is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas
concentrations12. This is an advance since the TAR's conclusion that "most of the observed
warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas
concentrations". Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate,
including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind
Please explain how you reconcile the fact that the present temperature increase began at
the end of the last ice age and that the glaciers have been melting for tens of thousands
of years with the claim that this is being driven by 20^th century production of greenhouse
gases? How can present release of greenhouse gases be the cause of climate change that
happened thousands of years ago? This conclusion seems entirely unjustified if only based
on the actual geologic record of earth history.
Have you had a peer review on this conclusion with the geological community? This
conclusion seems completely illogical.

Please do explain your conclusion!


Dr. Wayne Kraus, PhD
Littleton, Colorado

From: Wayne P. Kraus [[1]]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 3:52 PM
To: ''
Subject: Release of IPCC Temperature Data
Importance: High

Professor Phil Jones:

A colleague and I have been researching the temperature data which IPCC has used to suggest
the theory of man-made global warming. We have been searching for the raw data from all
historical temperature reporting stations used to construct the IPCC temperature plot. I
guess this has become known as the hockey stick.

We would like to do our own analysis of the raw data. We have lots of questions about the
data you have used. Here are a few of the questions we have.

1. We have found the list of the 1221 USHCN stations from information posted by NCAR. We
have noted that urban island effects began to influence the temperature readings during
the flight to suburbia following WW II. Did you correct USHCN data to account for that
2. Where can we find the raw data from historical temperature instruments covering the
oceans? The oceans cover more than 70% of the surface of the earth and we expect that
data to show significantly less variability (data scatter) than terrestrial temperature
3. Where can we find the raw data for all historical temperature data outside the USA
which you used when calculating your global average temperatures for the IPCC plot?
4. I anticipate the distribution of temperature recording instruments in remote and third
world nations is more sparse than in western industrial nations. How did you adjust
your global average volumetrically? What I mean is if there are 20 USHCN instruments
covering the entire state of Kansas and 100 USHCN instruments in the densely populated
area near New York City, the averaging technique has to remove that kind of bias. How
did you do this?

In short, I would be most grateful if you will direct me to an IPCC site where I can
retrieve the entire raw data collection you used to develop your analysis. I would also
like to see a comprehensive report on the techniques you used to compute your global
average temperature used in your plot.

Based on the many comments I have seen regarding your analysis of this recent temperature
history, I believe this data and those conclusions require greater peer review than they
have received. I hope you will cooperate in completing the scientific process of peer
review and verification.

Best regards,

Dr. Wayne Kraus, PhD
Littleton, Colorado

At 11:26 08/02/2008, Palutikof, Jean wrote:

Hi Phil
I've now had chance to read this carefully and this is very helpful, especially as we
also had a comment on PC2 of the Dai et al analysis.
If you're OK with this, I will insert a footnote which says:
Note that the PDSI does not realistically model drought in regions where precipitation
is held in the snowpack, for example, in polar regions.
Dr Jean Palutikof
Met Office, Fitzroy Road
Exeter EX1 3PB
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)1392 886212
Mobile: +44 (0)7753 880737
Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Jones [[2]]
Sent: 07 February 2008 16:25
To: Palutikof, Jean
Subject: Re: TP Water comment
Sorry for not getting back sooner. Use as much or as little of this as you want.
I'd like to know where this figure has been widely cited and used - but that's another
I have looked at Dai et al (2004) and the figures come from the top half
of their Figure 6, so this is only 6.7% of the total variance.
The PDSI is the most widely used measure of drought in the scientific literature. The
of the PDSI approach is develop drought series with similar characteristics in all
parts of the world
regardless of the precipitation and temperature climatology. So there will be
approximately the same number of droughts in the Mediterranean as in Scandinavia. It
therefore, a relative as opposed to an absolute measure of drought. This was all
discussed in Box 3.1 (p261). PDSI is therefore a non-linear transformation of the
temperature and precipitation data. In higher latitudes, as temperature is not that
high, PDSI
is essentially controlled by precipitation.
Although the Dai et al (2004) study uses a specific
version of PDSI, later work by Wells et al
(2004) -see Box 3.1 - shows that the self-calibrating
PDSI reproduces much the same patterns in the major PCs within a global PDSI dataset.
self-calibrating version allows local tuning and is not reliant on the original
version being
developed in the Great Plains. (It is even more local than the Great Plains - Palmer
it in Kansas!).
The PDSI may be unrealistic at high latitudes, but this has nothing to do with
determination. Instead it is unrealistic as in areas with extensive cold seasons,
is held as a snowpack, so not available for runoff. The PCA used in Dai et al (2004)
is heavily
biased to the tropics and mid-latitudes, as the grid-boxes here are much larger than
the polar regions. So the pattern in the Figure (and the associated time series) is
dominated by what is happening in the 50N to 50S zone.
The fact that the map is dominated by the tropics is evident in Dai et al's (2004)
PC2. The
time series for this pattern is dominated by ENSO variability (note the correlation of
when it is lagged 6 months behind Darwin's mean sea level pressure). The fact that
has such a clear agreement with the most well-known mode of climate variability on
interannual-to-decadal timescales should be indicative that PC1 is indicative of the
pattern of drought variability across the world's land areas.
Their reason for wanting changes is wrong. It is not to do with the coefficients.
PDSI is wrong because of the cold seasons in many regions.
I'm not being defensive, but we got loads of comments like this on the Chapter at the
various stages. They all come from hydrologists in the US who don't like the PDSI as
it is just too simple. I reckon I could reproduce the pattern if I took the CRU
precip data - smoothed it with a running 12-month smoother - and then did a PCA.
PC1 would be the map shown.
I've no idea how you'd chop off the higher latitudes - if you decide to go down that
If you could chop them off, the time series would be wrong!
At 11:01 07/02/2008, you wrote:
>Hi Phil
>Here's the comment:
>This comment was included in the previous
>government draft, but not adequately addressed by authors.
>"This figure has been widely cited and used, but
>there are important caveats related to
>determining Palmer Drought Severity Index values
>for regions outside the region it was originally
>developed (i.e., the U.S. Great Plains). This is
>especially true for its application to the high
>latitudes and polar regions, since these areas
>have extensive permafrost, tundra, etc.
>Determining the appropriate coefficients for
>application to these areas is extremely suspect!
>Please add several caveats regarding its suspect
>application to these areas where appropriate in
>the text. The Dai et al. (2004) study should've
>cut the analysis at a specific latitude (60�N)
>given the issues with tundra and permafrost."
>(Govt of USA)
>Dr Jean Palutikof
>Met Office, Fitzroy Road
>Exeter EX1 3PB
>United Kingdom
>Tel: +44 (0)1392 886212
>Mobile: +44 (0)7753 880737
>Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681
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

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