Wednesday, November 30, 2011


date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:22:29 +1100
from: David Thompson <>
subject: the paper....
to: Phil Jones <>, John Kennedy <>

Dear Phil and John,

Thanks much for the quick and helpful comments...

In the next version I'll include more details on the analysis procedure... hopefully that
will clarify how the volcano results were calculated.

As for the negative anomalies ~8-10 years before the eruption dates: they reflect the
impact of the trends in temperature on the composite, not just the impact of El Chichon
prior to Pinatubo. (You don't see the negative blips if you only go +/- 5 years). In the
text I used the spurious negative chunks to motivate the detrending. I agree with Phil that
the volcano text is still a little rough. And I like the idea of showing the results for
each volcano separately.

I've recently shown the results to a few folks heavily involved in the last IPCC, and
they've suggested we consider a pair of companion papers: a longer JCL paper which focuses
on the volcanos and provides the details of the filtering methodology; and a short, punchy
Nature paper which focuses on the step in 45. I suppose it's possible the step in 45 could
get lost in a longer volcano paper, and apparently the results clarify why the IPCC models
are unable to capture SST variability in the middle of the 20th century... if you have
strong thoughts on this, please let me know.

And if you have any additional comments that come to mind over the next couple weeks,
please send them along. I'll get a next draft to you soon after the New Year... it will
incorporate all your ideas, will provide the analysis details, etc ...

Thanks again,


David W. J. Thompson
Dept of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
Phone: 970-491-3338
Fax: 970-491-8449

No comments:

Post a Comment