Friday, April 13, 2012

3379.txt

date: Fri May 30 11:13:11 2008
from: Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: Re: paper
to: John Kennedy <john.kennedyatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk>

John,
Apologies for another email. The ppt looks good. It is important to get this
sort of work written up fairly quickly. I know it takes time and there are a lot of
issues, and you want to get it right first time (the 45-60 stuff and the recent)
and also add in as many of the extra logbooks as well.
The awful stuff on CA and also Roger Pielke's diagram will get some
airtime on the blog sites and some will use it for political purposes, but the
truth will win out in the end.

When you do all this you will preseumbly have a new version (say HadSST3).
Perhaps after that we should consider doing another Brohan et al. - and hence
HadCRUT4. We will have added in a lot of new Chinese station data as a result]
of the visitors you'll be seeing next week. A lot of extra station series for other
regions are going in as well. I think there is more we can do on the urban part
of the bias adjustments. All a long way off...
Cheers
Phil
At 09:52 30/05/2008, you wrote:

Dear all,
That climateaudit thing is awful and one might hope that Roger Pielke
would have had more sense than to put any faith in their 'corrections'.
I've attached the talk I gave at the CLIMAR workshop which shows how far
we've got with our estimated corrections. With Phil's guidance, The
Independent was pretty close: under his own steam, Steve McIntyre was.
John
On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 09:06 +0100, Phil Jones wrote:
>
> Dave, John, Mike,
> It does get a little worse when you look at the blog sites!
>
> [1]http://www.climateaudit.org/
>
>
>
[2]http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001445does_the_i
pccs_main.html
>
> You've likely met Roger Pielke Jr. They have taken the adjustments
> too far, far too far!
>
> I did talk to the Independent and they tried to produce the effect
> of likely adjustments.
>
> [3]http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/case-against-
> climate-change-discredited-by-study-835856.html
>
> This is probably too much, but it's much nearer than Pielke. I
> expect this to disappear earlier - or
> to a negligible amount by 1955.
>
> We'll need to do the adjustments - spatially and seasonally, for
> both the 45-60 period
> and also the post 2000. The skeptics seem to have a mind block on the
> latter. It may be
> smaller than 0.1, but it could be important spatially and seasonally.
> I reckon they forget
> the recent past and say the land record must be affected and the
> satellites are right, but
> then they always go for UAH. They have a fixation on this dataset and
> seem blind
> to the RSS one.
>
> A lot of work is going on with Sonde adjustments, using thermal
> winds etc. All
> seem to indicate that RSS is likely better, but you have to remember
> that this is LT
> and not the surface.
>
> Mike has been through all this before with an Academy Report and
> then there is the
> CCSP report.
>
> I'm not sure much will be gained by telling Nature their reporter
> isn't that good. The N&V
> article did confuse the issue with the early 1940s a little.
> Hopefully the new load of
> digitized SSTs for the whole of the 1940s will help resolve things
> better.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
> At 20:54 29/05/2008, David Thompson wrote:
> > Phil,
> >
> > Hopefully the NY Times article is reasonable.
> >
> > I indulged in 10 minutes of surfing some wacky right wing blog this
> > morning which is linked via the crummy Nature news piece (some guy
> > called McIntyre ranting about how he'd figured this all out before
> > and that our paper highlights how corrupt we all are). Anyway, it's
> > a surreal site and makes me feel sorry with what you and, say, Susan
> > must have to deal with on a regular basis. My instinct is to blow it
> > off. But what bugs me is that the link is prominently available
> > below the Nature news article.
> >
> > Do you think it's worth telling the editor (who I liked) that their
> > news article is factually wrong and that it's subsequent blog seems
> > overly vitriolic for a peer-reviewed journals main page? Or do you
> > suggest I just let it go.
> >
> > -Dave
> >
> >
> > On May 29, 2008, at 3:43 PM, Phil Jones wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Dave,
> > > The Nature news item is a bit of a curate's egg - good in
> > > parts, but very poor in some.
> > > I guess it didn't help moving Fort Collins to Boulder and getting
> > > the name wrong didn't
> > > help.
> > > I've just spoken to Henry Fountain at the NYT. I gave him some
> > > interesting
> > > historical snippets and I hope he will also call Scott Woodruff.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Phil
> > >
> > >
> > > At 22:03 28/05/2008, David Thompson wrote:
> > > > All,
> > > > Well the News and Views article is very nice and clear... I like
> > > > how it clarifies the non-impact on century-long trends. But the
> > > > Nature reporter's news story is really crappy. I'm surprised
> > > > they hired such a sensationalizing hack. I'm tempted to tell the
> > > > editor he makes them look bad.
> > > > -Dave
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > David W. J. Thompson
> > > > [4]www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
> > > >
> > > > Dept of Atmospheric Science
> > > > Colorado State University
> > > > Fort Collins, CO 80523
> > > > USA
> > > >
> > > > Phone: 970-491-3338
> > > > Fax: 970-491-8449
> > >
> > > 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
> > > NR4 7TJ
> > > UK
> > >
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > David W. J. Thompson
> > [5]www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
> >
> > Dept of Atmospheric Science
> > Colorado State University
> > Fort Collins, CO 80523
> > USA
> >
> > Phone: 970-491-3338
> > Fax: 970-491-8449
> >
>
> 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
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
--
John Kennedy Climate Monitoring and Research Scientist
Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB
Tel: +44 (0)1392 885105 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681
E-mail: john.kennedyatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk [6]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk
Global climate data sets are available from [7]http://www.hadobs.org

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
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

No comments:

Post a Comment