date: Mon Oct 5 13:16:07 2009
from: Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: Re: help please
to: Tom Wigley <wigleyatXYZxyzr.edu>
I don't think AR4 (Ch 3) went into the TLT/surface amplification issue. You can get
the pdf of the chapter from here http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html . This
amplification issue is only addressed in some recent papers - mainly Ben's.
The timescale argument is quite convincing. It is a pity that there is only Pinatubo
that you can test it on. El Chichon ought to work but it is confused by ENSO. Does the
amplification work well for the 1997/98 El Nino?
Did you pick up that Thompson et al paper due out in J. Climate soon? Factoring out ENSO
and volcanoes might help in isolating this.
where there is a link to the paper and also the data
It seems as though you can get all the extraction parts. No need for the dynamic bit.
Anyway my thought is as Pinatubo gives the amplification then ENSO ought to as well.
A thought might be to take Dave Thompson's ENSO and volcanic subtraction series, then
scale them by thermodynamic theory value then subtract these from RSS and UAH. Small issue
of base periods to sort out
and assume there is no lag.
Need to do this with NCDC surface as well - have to use Dave T's numbers here. This can't
do the 20N-20S - just the globe.
It would of course, at this and any other time, be very nice to show that UAH is wrong.
A couple of minor things in the paper
- the amplification should work for a cooling as well - not just warming trends?
In Fig 5 in your legend LOUAH should be UAHLO. This is in Fig 4 as well.
By the way - meant to add this to the earlier email.
NCDC ERSST3 side does talk about missing data, so any of this would mean the (NH+SH)/2
won't equal the global average that NCDC calculate.
I recall you asking about GISS. One thing I have learned about GISS is that they have a
cut off date of the 8th of each month. After this date nothing is changed for the previous
month and nothing earlier either. This means they never incorporate any back data and they
don't get the second tranche of CLIMAT data which comes about the 16th of the following
month. Countries like Paraguay and Bolivia mostly come in this way, plus some in Africa.
I'll see Tom Peterson later in the week. I'll ask him about their cut offs. I think they
don't change a month later. This won't lose you much data though. It was Tom who told me
about the data they can't use.
At 05:25 04/10/2009, Tom Wigley wrote:
I'm writing a report for EPRI where I have to discuss the
instrumental temperature record. What they are particularly
concerned with is/are the criticisms that have been leveled
at the surface record, especially differences from MSU data.
I think CCSP 1.1 does a good job on this -- not sure about
AR4 (which I need to re-check). But things have changed since
CCSP 1.1 and AR4, and I think I can make a better case against
UAH than either of these reports.
Could you please look at the attached and give me your opinion
and comments (tracked if that makes it easier)? In my view, the
evidence that the UAH data are flawed is overwhelming -- but I
want to make the case in a logical and balanced way. Have I
succeeded? The audience level for this is IPCC report level,
perhaps a bit lower. So I need to be relatively simple, but authoritative.
The MSU issue also comes up later in my report where I discuss
the IJOC Santer et al. paper -- which is only mentioned briefly
in the attached extract.
One thing I thought I might add is more about the other two
surface data sets. A key point may be that 1998 is not the
warmest year in the GISS record -- do you trust GISS? I've
not looked at NOAA. Perhaps this still has 1998 as warmest?
Thanks for your help.
By the way, this report was due to EPRI last week. I'm hoping
to get it to them by Friday (9 Oct.)
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 p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk