Friday, May 11, 2012


date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 09:55:49 +0000
from: Phil Jones <>
subject: Fwd: Re: changes in the NH annual cycle

Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 09:29:10 +0000
To: Drew Shindell <>
From: Phil Jones <>
Subject: Re: changes in the NH annual cycle
Apologies for the reference problem. Got the title off one of the reviewers (Mike
Mann) !
Changed it in another article I'm doing with Mike - a review of paleo for Rev. Geophys.
(submitted a few weeks ago). Mike has been spending too much time with that ridiculous
paper - still I think even he has been worn down by everything ! We may do some more on
the E&E paper but let things settle for a while. We won't be auditing it, but trying to
something that will also have some useful science in it. Mike may have made one or two
small mistakes, but nothing major. Skeptics seem to think that if you try and shoot one
down then the rest will fall. Several other groups (including us) have got pretty much
the same
result given the uncertainties. I'll forward an email from the editor of E&E - makes
fun reading.
Gavin and others might like to see it. Doesn't seem to grasp the concept of good
science !
Seems to think we get results just because of who funds us - I just hope that this
happen in other areas of science. The editor obviously has no idea how to write a
nor how hard it is to get proposals supported - we do have failed ones !
The European and Chinese regions are relatively small even in NH terms, but I would
reckon that if I were to regress averages for these two areas against NH temps the
wouldn't be too bad. So, I think what you propose is eminently reasonable. It is what I
support - we suggest that seasonal cycles in models should be tested and we think that
different forcings should be distinguishable by their seasonal signatures.
Do you want me to send you the series that went into Figs 1 and 2 in the paper? I
produce three groups (one for China - the N and E areas are a bit of a misnomer,
one is north of the other) and then one for N. Europe and one for C. Europe. N Europe
combine the Fennoscandian series with the Dutch/CET ones, then the other could use the
Italian stations with the Swiss and Czech.
N.China is 35-45N, 110-120E and E. China 30-35N, 115-120E. European sites/countries
are basically what they say they are. You could get 3 European regions if you split
Dutch/CET series from Fennoscandia. C. Europe should involve the Swiss/Czech/Italian
Apart from the Dutch series it is also possible to get the other 2 seasons as well.
will be OK, but for autumn there are generally few proxies, so this is the least good
for documentary data.
Just reread your letter. Missed the last couple of sentences first time. I'll send
the data
and some details. Happy to work with you.
At 14:43 04/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:

Hello Phil,
I hope you had a good trip home from Spain, and haven't had to spend too much time
dealing with the ridiculous Energy & Environment paper (I'm sure Mike's outraged, given
his temperment!).
I enjoyed your talk in San Feliu, and downloaded your JGR paper when I got home. I've
read it through, and wanted to run an idea by you. In your Figure 2, you show six of the
very long-term records, and in the text you point out that "warmer periods are
associated with lower summer/winter differences". I thought it would be interesting to
see if the model would reproduce such behavior and perhaps compare with the data you
show. Now I noticed that you specifically mention that given the limited amount of data,
it's not appropriate to form a composite. Given that China is quite large, the northern
and eastern sites could be quite far apart, and there are only two sites in any case. So
I fully agree that for nearly the entire globe there's too little data to create any
reasonable averages. What I wonder is about using the four European sites in a
comparison with the GCM simulations specifically for Europe (i.e. the rectangle
including England and the 3 central European sites). This covers enough of the model
domain that I believe we could get statistically significant results for the regional
average temperature response to forcing, though I haven't done the calculation yet.
Basically I would use the simulations described in our new J. Climate paper for solar
and volcanic forcings. What I did do so far is to create the summer/winter differences,
and they are of the opposite sign for the response to solar and volcanic forcing. I have
the change in the annual cycle per change annual average from the model, which could be
the most useful quantity. Given that the sign is opposite between the two forcings, this
seem interesting to me, and conceivably we could make at least a qualitative comparison
with the 4 proxy records and it would still be valuable. Qualitative would probably be
the most appropriate in any case, given that there are only 4 proxy records and that the
forcing time series, especially for solar, is not well-calibrated. Since the proxy data
and the simulations are already published, I would envision simply a short analysis of
the comparison between them. Do you think it'd be reasonable to use only 4 sites to in
some sense represent regional European temperatures, and if so, would you be interested
in providing the data from those 4 sites and/or in doing some analysis of this with me?
Best wishes,
PS The reference to our J. Climate paper in your JGR has an incorrect title (Little Ice
Age is too vague I feel). The paper is due out in the Dec 15 issue, and the full
reference is:
Shindell, D. T., G. A. Schmidt, R. L. Miller, and M. E. Mann, Volcanic and solar forcing
of climate change during the preindustrial era, J. Climate, 16, 4094-4107, 2003.
Dr. Drew Shindell
NASA-Goddard Institute for Space Studies
2880 Broadway
New York, NY 10025 USA
Tel/Fax: (212) 678-5561

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