Saturday, June 2, 2012


date: Tue Dec 7 17:12:30 2004
from: Phil Jones <>
subject: Re: our IJC manuscript
to: Anders Moberg <>

Apologies for the slow reply.
1. IPCC section is called 'Changes in Extreme Events' . Albert has reviewed many studies,
but there aren't that many before 1950 and not many for other continents. Try saying that
this is one of the first studies going back this far. I can't find the comments at the
2. Central Europe is OK, but we do also look at western Europe. I would go with western.
Agrees with robust indices for extremes.
3. I'll email you the current IPCC report and you can look at what Albert's written.
the remainder, just 3.8. There are some that look at precip and see increases in extremes,
even though the mean in decreasing. Mostly for temperature extreme trends are consistent
with mean changes.
4. Urban influences are unimportant - see this paper in Nature. We are looking at
effects therefore, they are not local.
Other papers attached by mistake, but relevant anyway.
How did the interview go ?
At 10:37 07/12/2004, you wrote:

At last I have got the nose enough above the water to look at our IJC manuscript again.
I agree with your suggested strategy. There are some points where you could help me if
you have time:
1. What is the planned title for the IPCC section you mention? Could you give some more
argument from the IPPC work to not make any changes in response to the main criticism by
ref A?
2. Should we change "moderate extremes" in the title to something like "robust indices
for extremes" to get rid of the "anachronism" the reveiwer B mentions. More about title:
shall we use Central Europe instead of just Europe? I think this is a good idea.
3. Are there any good references that discuss both changes in the mean and extremes in
Europe (to follow up on the reviewer A's wishes)? Do you have any favourite papers that
discuss trends in precip and/or temperature in Europe?
4. What is your feeling about the suggestion by ref B that urban influence is important
for causing the trends in the station series we used? Is it that important?
At 15:10 2004-10-14 +0100, you wrote:

Thanks for replying to Aad so thoroughly whilst I've been away !
As for the comments, I was reading some responses Marie had made to two special
issue papers from the SWURVE project. She did a good job of dismissing the reviewer's
comments in a response to the editor and only ended up making a few changes to the
manuscript. I say this as I suggest you follow the same route here. I think if you
back a revised paper taking into account some/most of B's comments and just point
out to Glenn (politely) that A doesn't know what they are talking about ! A's minor
are OK - are we going to use colour?
Basically though A is living in another world. He/she has no idea because
- just thinks the daily series are sitting out there (you could mention a little
more about
getting access to the series. It is partly a lack of digitised series and also
policies re availability). EMULATE will help, but there is so much more that
could be done.
- our paper title is roughly what we will call the section in IPCC report ! Globe
instead of
Europe. That will have no focus on the means, just the extremes. The current
study is
about extremes. There have been countless ones about the mean ! You could mention
that a few studies have tried to link extremes to changes in the mean and
variability, but this
is really difficult because the quality and quantity of the data are not really up to
it. The studies
quoted have only looked at a couple of locations and used mainly model output.
Hope you're in agreement with this.
At 15:27 11/10/2004, you wrote:

Here is the deleted message:
Just got the review of our extremes trend paper. It was posted on 22 Sep, s ito took
long time from Britain to Sweden. I have posted photocopies of the review to you. Hope
the return journey is much faster!
In summary:
Rev A found the study useful and careful, but wanted us to focus on EITHER precip OR
temp, but on BOTH means AND extremes (ultimately leading to TWO papers). This would
require lots of work, and I don't want to do this. Will have to argue against this -
possibly by telling the editor that much more will be done in EMULATE. Rev A was also
disappointed by the bad data coverage, e.g. no Iberian data. (EMULATE will help here...)
Rev B had a number of points where he wanted us to deepen the discussion, but overall he
thought the paper was GOOD. He also implicitly revealed himself as being Scandinavian
and most likely he is Heikki Tuomenvirta.
Tell me what you think when you have seen the review.

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
UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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