Monday, May 7, 2012


date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 16:51:02 -0000 (GMT)
subject: Re: the penultimate draft
to: "John Kennedy" <>

I meant you to add this acknowledgement.

PDJ has been supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (grant

See my point re 0.3 and 0.4 - need to be careful with SST only
and true global.

If adjustments go thru the 1950s more than implied this
would help the Detection diagram I alluded to in my email yesterday.

Also for John, saying we're waiting for more digitizing justifies
the year's delay better. We don't want to have to wait...


PS Yes do come by Norwich when you're at Reading

> Dave,
> I've made some changes to the attached version of the draft, summarised
> below. The largest changes I've suggested (1 and 3 below) are in the
> abstract and the final paragraph which discusses the adjustments.
> 1) In the abstract I suggested changing the second sentence to "The
> discontinuity occurs in late 1945 and contributes substantially to the
> apparent cooling of ~0.4C at the end of the Second World War." as it is
> possible that at least part of the drop is real.
> 2) The adjustments could conceivably take a year to complete, but might
> be completed sooner. I think the danger of saying it will take much less
> than a year is that the reviewers could tell us to go away and do it.
> I've suggested removing that part of the sentence.
> 3) I've added to the draft a rough estimate of the size of the
> corrections - based on the size of the bucket corrections just before
> the war - which emphasises the fact that we expect the corrections to
> shrink to zero by the mid-1960s. I've seen some unusual diagrams
> suggesting that the full bucket correction (~0.4C) should be applied
> right through to the 1970s and it's worth emphasising that that's not
> what we're advocating.
> 4) The global mean land time series exhibits a small cooling from the
> middle of the century to the 80s. I've made a change to this effect in
> the draft, but the cooling is probably insignificant.
> 5) There are some other minor editorial changes.
> 6) The reference for the ICOADS data set is:
> Worley, S.J., Woodruff, S.D., Reynolds, R.W., Lubker, S.J. and Lott, N.
> (2005) ICOADS Release 2.1 Data and Products. Int. J. Climatol. 25:
> 823-842
> 7) I have added an acknowledgement to my funding body.
> Figures 1 and 3. In the captions you could refer to the Hadley Centre
> SST data as HadSST2
> Figure 4. There is some erroneous text saying "T T Tanel" and "tt n
> Tanel". The lines indicating where the zoomed section of the plot fits
> into the full time series doesn't correspond to the period covered by
> the zoomed section. I would also suggest changing 'derived from US' to
> 'which can be positively identified as coming from US'.
> I've initiated our approval process here. Two out of the four people who
> need to see the paper have already gone through it and I've rolled their
> comments in with mine - their principle concern was with the abstract
> addressed in my comment (1) above and in the attached draft). I'm doing
> everything I can to speed things up. The fact that its for Nature and
> potentially newsworthy is likely to help. However, I can't get final
> approval to submit the paper until I have the paper in its final form.
> If we have a final draft on Monday, its possible that I'll have that
> approval in the week.
> Thanks,
> John
> On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 16:22 +0000, Phil Jones wrote:
>> Dave,
>> Basically happy. A few points, some of the same again.
>> Submit when ready! Have a good weekend!
>> 1. Maybe John can add something on this. This refers to the final
>> paragraph. Skeptics will say - why does it take a year to sort this
>> out!
>> Reviewers might as well! I know John has schedules for work, so
>> this has to be fit in. It could probably be accommodated by saying,
>> it takes time because we are waiting to add in more UK WW2 SST
>> measurements which are being digitized. These will improve the 40-45
>> period. I still think these SST values in 41-44 are too high. I'm
>> hoping
>> the more obs will reduce the level.
>> 2. The drop of 0.4K in Aug45 in the global mean must mean the
>> drop in SST in Aug45 is of the order of 0.8K. It doesn't look this
>> much
>> - in fact looking at Figs 1 and 2, it looks about the 0.5 in Fig 2. I
>> would
>> suggest you say the drop in Fig 1 is 0.3 and not 0.4.
>> The global average is roughly 0.6*SST and 0.4*land. If the drop is
>> 0.5
>> in SST it has be 0.3 in the combined. 0.5 is about one tick mark,
>> which
>> is roughly what it is.
>> 3. I still think it would be good to say the ENSO 'part' in Figure 1
>> looks
>> very like the smoothed SOI series based on Tahiti and Darwin.
>> Indeed
>> you could go along this and pick off dates for El Nino and La Nina.
>> 4. For reference (i) I think Trenberth et al - the chapter 3 from the
>> AR4 is what you should reference - as opposed to the Technical
>> Summary.
>> In a letter to Nature - you could say this is an analysis of the
>> most
>> studied series in climatology. Thousands of people have looked at the
>> data - and no-one has noticed this before!
>> Aside - If the skeptics had been doing their job properly and didn't
>> start from a
>> biased base, they might have spotted it !!! They start from the
>> premise that the
>> series is wrong. They will be kicking themselves to have missed
>> this.
>> I've always said it is WW2.
>> A number have sort of commented upon this is the context of the
>> figure
>> which is FAQ 9.2 Figure 1 on p703 of WG1 AR4. This is also in the
>> SPM Figure 4. The value for the 1940s pops out of the coloured
>> envelopes, especially for the oceans.
>> The week after next I'll see Daithi Stone who drew this, so ask him
>> what will happen
>> if Aug45-1950 get raised a little. It could make it worse, unless the
>> 50s also go
>> up a little. The figure is all based on the 1901-50 period. So if
>> that is higher, the
>> black obs line drops down.
>> Finally we are the Climatic Research Unit. Do a global edit and
>> get
>> rid of Climate Research Unit. It' in Figure 3 caption at least.
>> Cheers
>> Phil
> --
> 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:
> Global climate data sets are available from

No comments:

Post a Comment