Thursday, May 17, 2012


date: Wed Jul 9 11:00:41 2008
from: Phil Jones <>
subject: RE: Radon.
to: "Arnold Wolfendale" <>

Dear Arnold,
Thanks for the paper. Getting into climate science can seem difficult.
Climate Science seems to be ever expanding. I often get requests to
comment on all manner of things - from the G8 summit statement
yesterday to carbon savings from renewable technologies and biofuels.
I try to stay in what I know which is the climate science, but the media
and the public seem to think I should be a fount of all knowledge on
all things climate. G8 did at least endorse the IPCC, but the politicians
don't seem to have much idea of what to do about it or how serious it
might become. They have opportunities for far-sightedness, but they
all work on a different timescale.
The Svensmark hypothesis is just about ignored in what I like to
call mainstream climate science (the WG1 reports of IPCC). I presume
you've talked to Mike Lockwood about your work.
Svensmark at least publishes his work in the literature (not mainstream
climate journals) and acts like a scientist. There is a whole raft of skeptics
who have found each other through the internet and this is where
it gets nasty on some of the blog sites.
At 12:04 08/07/2008, you wrote:

Dear Phil,
Many thanks for your prompt reply.
I was interested in your remarks about radon and cloud cover.It seems to
us that if Svensmark et al. were right there would be some effect,at least
for those regions where the radon level is very high.The highest radon level
in the world is,apparently,in Ramsar,Iran.So far,however,we have not been
able to obtain contours.A 'state secret' it seems!No effect in Southern
Your remarks about the ISCCLP data being error-prone are well
taken.However,they are the best we have.The change in 1994,sometimes
attributed to orbit changes,etc.,may well be genuine,insofar as this is when
the anthropic temperature rise seems to bite and,furthermore, we find
increased variability in various cloud parameters after then.
Thank you for the 'Swedish paper';most interesting.
I'm sending a copy of our published paper.We have more on the stocks.
I must say that Cosmic Ray Physics and Cosmology,my usual areas,are a
damned sight easier than yours!
Kind Regards,
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Jones [[1]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 11:29 AM
To: Arnold Wolfendale
Subject: Re: Radon.
As you're aware there is a large literature on the subject of cloud
cover variations and surface air temperatures. No knowledge of any
work with radon and cloud cover.
Biggest problem is that the cloud cover obs are fairly short and/or
affected by biases - both surface observer based and satellite based.
Satellite clouds have the same problems as measurements on lower
tropospheric temps due to differing satellites and changes in orbits.
The ISCCLP dataset is affected.
The attached is just a small example of the problems of putting
a surface-based cloud dataset for Sweden.
At 10:19 08/07/2008, you wrote:
>Dear Phil,
> Do you know of any work on possible correlations of radon with Cloud
>cover or ground level temperature?We have done some work in this area
>but being newcomers to the field we are not adequately acquainted with
>who has done what.
> Our interest stems from the need to check the Svensmark
>hypothesis.Although far-fetched it needs checking carefully.we have
>done some work already but need to be sure.
> Kind Regards,
> Arnold.
> (Sir Arnold Wolfendale FRS)
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