Monday, April 30, 2012

3635.txt

date: Thu Oct 22 15:26:14 2009
from: Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: RE: 2009 preliminary data on average global temperature deviations
to: Ricardo Fernandez <Ricardo.FernandezatXYZxyz.europa.eu>

OK
Phil
At 14:50 22/10/2009, you wrote:

Thanks Phil,
Perhaps you can send a copy of your paper when published?
Cheers
Ricardo
___________________________________________________________________________________

From: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: 22 October 2009 15:02
To: Ricardo Fernandez
Subject: RE: 2009 preliminary data on average global temperature deviations

Ricardo,
The stations in the Arctic are much the same in the CRU, GISS and NCDC analyses.
Differences in gridding are a factor as well, but the infilling that NCDC (NOAA) do is
beginning to have an effect in the Arctic.
In this region, we don't do any infilling, so if a box has no data then it stays
missing. Infilling gives you more boxes, which generally have higher T anomalies than
the average of the rest of the hemisphere, so leads to the NCDC/NOAA analysis appearing
warmer.
The way we calculate the globe is an important factor. We use for the globe the
average of the two hemispheres. NCDC and GISS calculate as one domain. Even with
infilling NCDC still has some gaps in the SH, so this biases the globe to the NH.
I'm involved in a paper coming out soon looking at ERA-INTERIM. This is the newest
Reanalysis that covers the period from 1989-2008. If you sample this where CRU has data
over land, the agreement is amazingly good. As ERA-INTERIM is complete, you can sample
all NH and SH areas where there is land. This shows slightly more warmer than CRU,
mainly for the NH. When these extra areas are mapped it is mostly coming from the Arctic
and Siberia.
You are right that the lower slope for GISS is due to their large boxes. Their numbers
look larger , as most people forget that their base period is 1951-80.
Cheers
Phil

At 12:32 22/10/2009, Ricardo Fernandez wrote:
Hello Phil,
I read an article in Le Monde yesterday where according to Stefan Rahmstof (university
of Postdam) the main difference between the warming observed in GISS and Hadley is that
you do not cover the Artic. I was surprised by this. You publish documentation about the
network of stations used in the calculation of (land) surface temperature
[2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/landstations/ and there are several stations above
66 degrees N. Am I missing something?
I also thought the differences between CRU, GISS, but also NOAA, were mainly due to
methods and gridding techniques: e.g. you calculate the global anomaly by averaging the
two hemispheres, thus giving more weight (i.e. than if you averaged all grids) to the
poorly covered and colder Southern Hemisphere. It was also my understanding that over
the long run there is a lower slope coefficient for GISS because their method provides
estimates for empty grid boxes when at least one station falls within a 1200 Km radius
of an unsampled box, which is common e.g. in Antarctica, where warming has been lower
than in other areas since the 1970s. You do not provide estimates for unsampled grids.
Ricardo
________________________________________
Ricardo Fernandez
Analyst
Air and Climate Change Mitigation
European Environment Agency
Kongens Nytorv 6
1050 Copenhagen K
Denmark
[3]ricardo.fernandez@eea.europa.eu
___________________________________________________________________________________

From: Phil Jones [ [4]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: 14 October 2009 14:52
To: Ricardo Fernandez; Barbara.BACIGALUPIatXYZxyzeuropa.eu
Cc: Andr� Jol; a.ogdenatXYZxyz.ac.uk
Subject: RE: 2009 preliminary data on average global temperature deviations

Ricardo,
Thanks!
Phil
At 13:35 14/10/2009, Ricardo Fernandez wrote:
Dear Barbara,

Further to Phils email, I attach the chart based on the latest HadCRU3 data - as in
previous years. The estimate of the mean anomaly for 2009 is based on the available 8
months (January-August). The (smoothed) global mean temperature for 2009 would then be
0.75 Celsius (rounded i.e. 0.8) above pre-industrial levels (using 10-year moving
averages and relative to the period 1850-1899). I can send 3 more updates (including
September, October and November) before the December anomaly is available from CRUs
website. I should be able to send you the final chart sometime in January.

Ricardo
________________________________________
Ricardo Fernandez
Analyst
Air and Climate Change Mitigation
European Environment Agency
Kongens Nytorv 6
1050 Copenhagen K
Denmark
Tel: +45 3336 7270 / +45 23646514 (mobile)
Fax: +45 3336 7151
[5]ricardo.fernandez@eea.europa.eu
___________________________________________________________________________________

From: Phil Jones [ [6]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: 14 October 2009 14:22
To: Barbara.BACIGALUPI@ec.europa.eu; Ricardo Fernandez
Cc: Andr� Jol; a.ogdenatXYZxyz.ac.uk
Subject: Re: 2009 preliminary data on average global temperature deviations

Barbara and Ricardo,
The current value is +0.43 deg C above the 1961-90 level. This is for 2009 including
August.
This would make 2009 the 7th warmest year behind in order 1998, 2005, 2002, 2003, 2004
and 2006.
The El Nino event is making the second half of the year warmer though, so it may yet
pass 2004 and 2006
and possibly 2003. It just depends.... Only 1998 and 2005 stand out from the rest.
Cheers
Phil
At 13:31 08/10/2009, Barbara.BACIGALUPIatXYZxyzeuropa.eu wrote:
Dear Ricardo and Phil,
We are currently working on the next (2009) version of the Environment Policy Review,
and therefore updating all information.
Please find the EPR 2008 available on:
[7]http://ec.europa.eu/environment/policyreview.htm
Please look at indicator 1.1 of the annex.
Do you have (preliminary) 2009 data for global temperature? I could not find any
information or press release available on: [8]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Barbara
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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