Thursday, December 29, 2011

1406.txt

date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:12:14 +1300
from: David Thompson <davetatXYZxyzos.colostate.edu>
subject: Re: the penultimate draft
to: Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>

Hi Phil,

Thanks again for the comments. Just so you know:

- I have dropped any discussion of the time scale to fix the SST problem.

- it's hard to pin down an exact value for the drop, since doing so involves some
subjective decisions about averaging periods, etc. So I've opted for your more conservative
estimate of 0.3.

- I've noted that the equation used to calculate the ENSO fit acts to low pass filter and
time lag the input ENSO time series.

- Sorry for the rogue 'Climate Research Unit' references; I had searched the text file but
not the figures file.

The paper has to go through an internal approval process by the Hadley Centre. As soon as
that's done I'll send the final submitted version to the group.

-Dave

On Jan 19, 2008, at 5:22 AM, Phil Jones wrote:

Dave,
Basically happy. A few points, some of the same again.
Submit when ready! Have a good weekend!
1. Maybe John can add something on this. This refers to the final
paragraph. Skeptics will say - why does it take a year to sort this out!
Reviewers might as well! I know John has schedules for work, so
this has to be fit in. It could probably be accommodated by saying,
it takes time because we are waiting to add in more UK WW2 SST
measurements which are being digitized. These will improve the 40-45
period. I still think these SST values in 41-44 are too high. I'm hoping
the more obs will reduce the level.
2. The drop of 0.4K in Aug45 in the global mean must mean the
drop in SST in Aug45 is of the order of 0.8K. It doesn't look this much
- in fact looking at Figs 1 and 2, it looks about the 0.5 in Fig 2. I would
suggest you say the drop in Fig 1 is 0.3 and not 0.4.
The global average is roughly 0.6*SST and 0.4*land. If the drop is 0.5
in SST it has be 0.3 in the combined. 0.5 is about one tick mark, which
is roughly what it is.
3. I still think it would be good to say the ENSO 'part' in Figure 1 looks
very like the smoothed SOI series based on Tahiti and Darwin. Indeed
you could go along this and pick off dates for El Nino and La Nina.
4. For reference (i) I think Trenberth et al - the chapter 3 from the IPCC
AR4 is what you should reference - as opposed to the Technical Summary.
In a letter to Nature - you could say this is an analysis of the most
studied series in climatology. Thousands of people have looked at the
data - and no-one has noticed this before!
Aside - If the skeptics had been doing their job properly and didn't start from a
biased base, they might have spotted it !!! They start from the premise that the
series is wrong. They will be kicking themselves to have missed this.
I've always said it is WW2.
A number have sort of commented upon this is the context of the figure
which is FAQ 9.2 Figure 1 on p703 of WG1 AR4. This is also in the
SPM Figure 4. The value for the 1940s pops out of the coloured
envelopes, especially for the oceans.
The week after next I'll see Daithi Stone who drew this, so ask him what will happen
if Aug45-1950 get raised a little. It could make it worse, unless the 50s also go
up a little. The figure is all based on the 1901-50 period. So if that is higher, the
black obs line drops down.

Finally we are the Climatic Research Unit. Do a global edit and get
rid of Climate Research Unit. It' in Figure 3 caption at least.
Cheers
Phil
At 00:39 17/01/2008, David Thompson wrote:

Hi all,
Please find attached the (hopefully) penultimate version of the
paper. I have iterated with everyone individually, but if you have
any more comments or thoughts on the attached version, please let me
know. My hope is to submit the paper by the end of the day Monday
(in the US), so if you can get any additional comments to me by then,
that would be great (if you need more time, please let me know).
The text is attached as a doc and pdf file; the figures are attached
as a pdf file.
Thanks again....
-Dave

--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
David W. J. Thompson
[1]www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
Dept of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
USA
Phone: 970-491-3338
Fax: 970-491-8449
Hi all,
Please find attached the (hopefully) penultimate version of the paper. I have iterated
with everyone individually, but if you have any more comments or thoughts on the
attached version, please let me know. My hope is to submit the paper by the end of the
day Monday (in the US), so if you can get any additional comments to me by then, that
would be great (if you need more time, please let me know).
The text is attached as a doc and pdf file; the figures are attached as a pdf file.
Thanks again....
-Dave
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
David W. J. Thompson
[2]www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
Dept of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
USA
Phone: 970-491-3338
Fax: 970-491-8449

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 [3]p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
David W. J. Thompson
www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet
Dept of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
USA
Phone: 970-491-3338
Fax: 970-491-8449

No comments:

Post a Comment