from: Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: Re: Ch 3
to: Kevin Trenberth <trenbertatXYZxyzr.edu>
Things seem to be coming in. Will work on 3.5-3.7 tomorrow. 3.2 and the Appendices
now back with David. The Appendices read pretty good - lots of useful background
material. It will be shame to lose it to a web site. Once David gets these back these
should be almost good enough to go out to all on July 15 (or whenever we said).
A thought kept recurring - there must be a better way to do this ! Although the FOD
reviews will be different from the ZOD (and many more), I'm prepared to come to Boulder
for a week
in early 2006 if needed. I think I can get the money from the UK to do this. Question is
will be it be worthwhile. Better if we were both locked away somewhere other than one
of our institutions, but then we wouldn't have the infrastructure, support (email,
Anyway, give it some thought. You'll know more than I do about some much the FOD
and SOD change. Q is whether a week or a fortnight is sufficient. If we knew that a few
key people in the chapter were at their desks, the text should show a marked improvement.
Assuming here the majority of the Figures set by then - just a few need updating.
At 17:03 24/05/2005, you wrote:
Thanks for update: monday is a holiday here: Memorial Day, seems weird that Brian is
My approach to the revisions at this stage is not to take the material sent and
wholesale replace it, but cautiously compare and insert if it makes sense. i.e. you and
I need to act as editors with a fairly strong hand. I suspect 3.7 may have some useful
material but it could degrade the section by further adding material that is not
especially relevant. I'll bet it does not shorten it, which is desired still.
I am clearly not on same page as Brian wrt clouds and radiation, and I am interested in
his take on it all, given the new material and changes. I am not a fan of Norris'
stuff. We have updated Fig 3.4.1 on water vapor thru 2004: the ocean trend drops to
1.2%/decade. So you can help a lot by putting your take on the 3.4 stuff: it may also
require some careful wording to accommodate different views if we can't see eye to eye.
For instance, on the dimming, the recent Pinker paper uses ISCCP and I simply don't
believe the trends from ISCCP at all. Saying Wielicki and ISCCP agree actually damns
them both. Or similarly saying Norris and ISCCP agree causes problems (this relates to
upper cloud, which Norris gets from total minus lower, but those two sets of data are
not homogeneous: there is not a lower cloud ob for every total; using means, esp zonal
means without differencing each ob potentially causes major problems).
Dennis is starting on the 3.6 figs today plus the Sahel one.
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 p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk