Monday, June 11, 2012

5105.txt

date: Tue Apr 5 07:56:57 2005
from: Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: Re: Douglass and Knox, GRL, March 2005
to: Tom Wigley <wigleyatXYZxyz.ucar.edu>

Tom,
That's what Myles says as well - you can't reduce the uncertainty range,
especially the upper limit. Myles gets the lower limit of at least 1-1.5C.
I'm off after today until April 15. See you later in the month.
Cheers
Phil
At 15:41 04/04/2005, you wrote:

Thanx Phil. I will see Myles at the end of the month before coming up to Norwich.
By the way, my paper says one CAN get sensitivity from volcanoes, but cannot
narrow the uncertainty range.
Tom.
===========
Phil Jones wrote:

Tom,
I gave Myles the crap paper last week when we met at Duke for an IDAG
meeting. He has a paper coming out soon in GRL saying much the
same as you - volcanoes can't be used to estimate the climate sensitivity.
He was unaware of Douglass and Knox. I think Myles paper has someone
else as the first author. Myles is aware of your paper. He refers to it
and made a comment to getting the same sort of answer in his presentation.
I am saying all this as Myles went onto Sydney, Australia and is there for
much of this week.
I think we've all signed off on the NRC review. You should get something in the
next 2-3 weeks so I'm told. I couldn't seem to stop Lindzen referring to
the crap paper nor his own in response to some comments in Chapter 5. With your
paper coming up and the one Myles is involved with you'll have enough to
not bother answering.
Cheers
Phil
At 14:52 04/04/2005, you wrote:

I am writing a comment on this, with Ben and Caspar Ammann.
It is total crap. It is a pain to do, but important to have a response
on the record.
A number of us suspect that one of the editors of GRL is deliberately
choosing 'sympathetic' referees for papers like this (another e.g. is the
recent M&M paper criticizing the hockey stick).
Myles -- did I send you my volcano paper (soon in JGR)?
Tom.
===================
Myles Allen wrote:

Dear Phil and Tom,
Thanks for the copy of Douglass and Knox, Phil. Am I
right that answer to the "exercise to the reader
spotting the obvious mistake" is:
1) Failure to take into account uncertainty in the
baseline climate (or, indeed, the removed ENSO and
solar signals) in fitting the simple model. If
everything is shifted down by 0.2K in figure 3, you
could get a much higher peak and relaxation time. I'm
reasonably confident about this one, because (as Dick
points out) fitting things is what I do...
I'm less confident about
2) Confusion between TOA longwave anomalies, which
would presumably be affected by the cold stratospheric
aerosol cloud, and tropopause longwave anomalies,
which are relevant to the calculation of lambda. This
is most evident in paragraph [26], where they suggest
Delta(T)/Delta(LW)~lambda, with Delta(LW) being the
perturbation TOA longwave anomaly observed by ERBE.
Can one really ignore the impact of volcanic aerosols
on longwave fluxes?
3) Odder still, equation (9) seems to suggest that the
forcing due to Pinatubo is simply the longwave
anomaly, with no mention of shortwave at all:
although, perhaps by chance, they seem to get a
forcing-to-AOD relationship that is consistent with
Hansen's.
Are you doing anything about this, Tom? Does it
matter? Will anyone care?
Myles
Send instant messages to your online friends [1]http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

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
NR4 7TJ
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 p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

No comments:

Post a Comment