Friday, June 1, 2012


date: Fri Feb 15 11:59:49 2008
from: Phil Jones <>
subject: Re: A warning for Feb 7-8
to: Robert Marsh <>

Thanks for the abstracts. Courtillot can happily go off and reinvent the wheel.
Why dos he need daily data to look at large-scale temperature change?
Estimating global mean T is simple. Why does he need to complicate it !

At 09:52 13/02/2008, you wrote:

Phil -
The meeting was rather bizarre in scope, with positions ranging from
"IPCC too cautious" (Hansen, Siddall) to "IPCC wrong" (see below). It
was only modestly attended, but by an eclectic mix of people (30-50 at
any one time). Most talks were sincere and specific in focus
(volcanoes, ice sheets, CO2 sequestration, etc.). To be honest, I
attended (and contributed a poster) to support my head-of-school
(Andrew Roberts, a geomagnetist), who organized the meeting. He knows
Courtillot from his discipline & invited him, but Andrew is no skeptic
himself - indeed he's driving efforts at NOCS to reduce our carbon
There were two climate skepic talks: Vincent Courtillot and Arnold &
Robinson, "Solar modulation of atmospheric transport processes" (Dept.
Physics & Astronomy, U. Leicester). Courtillot was fairly rude about
the groups contributing air temperature data to the AR4, also
ridiculing the fact that only two groups work on such important data
(he expects more international competition, hence his belated efforts).
He claims that the raw data is witheld due to some agreement - the
point you to which you refer below. Based on his limited analysis of
European (and a few N. American) station data, he concludes most
continental scale warming comprises rapid regime shifts, inevitably
linked to the sun (but without explanation). Pressed for an opinion, he
believes that CO2 has a negligible influence on climate, and that by
2050 the world will be no warmer than the MWP. I wanted to question him
publicly (on the evidence from other changes such as increasing OHC)
but I didn't get the chance due to heavy & inevitable questioning on
ethics of his casual attitude towards climate change.
The other talk was more scientifically searching, drawing attention to
influence of coronal mass ejections on the mesosphere, residual
atmospheric circulation & teleconnections between high/low atmosphere &
high/low latitudes that support the extent & pattern of surface
warming. Arnold also claimed that CO2 doesn't really matter. I did pose
a question to him, asking how he can ignore all the AR4 model evidence
for attribution of 20th century warming to CO2, but he dismisses all
OAGCMs as flawed in under-representing the high atmosphere/solar
influence. I have abstracts for both talks that I can send on - are you
interested to see them?
On 6 Feb 2008, at 15:43, Phil Jones wrote:

If you can send me a couple of sentences next week sometime
that would be good.
If Courtillot should go on about the CRU station data, then he
can get almost the same data from NCDC. As you know,
we do release the gridded data, which is what everybody wants.
At 14:39 06/02/2008, you wrote:

Phil - I am indeed presenting a poster at the meeting
tomorrow/Friday. I appreciate the forewarning! Speak soon - Bob.
On 6 Feb 2008, at 13:36, Phil Jones wrote:

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