Sunday, June 17, 2012

5256.txt

date: Fri Mar 11 16:50:45 2005
from: Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: Re: This and that - and CCSP
to: Tom Wigley <wigleyatXYZxyz.ucar.edu>

Tom,
Thanks for that. I was just about to get around to rewording that and sending it back.
I had to read the first draft of the comments on the Executive Summary from one of
the other panel members. Although there is a lot to do, I think you'll like some of them.
Many of the other chapter authors may not, though ! Maybe we'll end up with some
more dissenters ! A lot relate to Fu et al as you might have guessed.
We have a conf call next Friday at 4pm my time, when hopefully we'll get
something towards closure on this. I've only had emails from two people on
the panel and the secretary since I left Chicago. Unfortunately Mike Wallace
doesn't seem to have had time to look through Ch 5 (well very briefly). He
was only on the conf call in Chicago for 30 minutes. He didn't say much.
Cheers
Phil
At 16:12 11/03/2005, you wrote:

SEE BELOW -- SAME THING SAID TWICE
Phil Jones wrote:

Tom,
In Asheville this week but now back. Had a brief work with Tom K. on the VTT
work. So he got a summary like you. I'm not supposed to be talking to anyone
of your group except through Tom K. I've just got comments on your exec summ
from Dennis Hartmann. I'll go through these this weekend. I think I've effectively
signed off on Chapters 3 and 5.
You'll likely have to rewrite the summary to pick up the bullet points from the
other 6 chapters. Hopefully you'll get comments before May 1. We have to finish
by April 1 (there is a conf call on the 18th), which will hopefully be it for me.
At the moment the NRC person is having difficulty with my following comment -

There is an issue related to land-use/land-cover (LULC) changes that
>could be addressed here or maybe elsewhere in other chapters. This is
>that in the modeling discussion (in Chapters 5 and 6) LULC is considered
>to be a forcing

AND IN CH. 1

that is in some models and not incorporated in others as
>the forcing and its history is uncertain.

If it is a forcing

NOTE WORDING -- *NOT* A FORCING?

(and we
>think it is

'IS' OR 'IS NOT' -- AMBIGUOUS IF NOT CAREFULLY WORDDED

), then we should not be worrying that it influences the
>surface or tropospheric temperature record.

If it is a forcing

???? SAME THING TWICE ???

then it
>needs to be in the data

WHAT DATA? YOU CAN'T HAVE A FORCING IN THE TEMP DATA --
BUT YOU COULD HAVE THE *EFFECTS* OF A FORCING IN THE
TEMP DATA

in the order that it might be found. You can't
>have it both ways - the data are affected by it, so they are somehow
>wrong, yet it is omitted from many models."

GOOD GRIEF -- I HAVE RARELY READ ANYTHING SO POORLY WORDED!!

I do need to work on the English a little

BOY -- WHAT AN UNDERSTATEMENT

, but it should be understandable.
Tom K is also very fed up with Pielke !
Cheers
Phil
PS Have you been getting postcards from Thomson publishing (?)

NO

about
essential science indicators. I have 3, for 3 papers saying they've been
heavily cited. The 3 are from 1997-2003 and have been cited 57, 68 and 41 times !

PER YEAR?? EVEN 68 TOTAL CITES IN 7 YEARS IS NOT MUCH.

3 articles in the top 1% of the field.
Articles are the one with Anders Moberg in 2003, one in Science on the last millennium
in 2001 and the one on error estimates from 1997.
At 23:46 10/03/2005, you wrote:

THanx Phil. Some comments in caps ....
Tom
===========
Phil Jones wrote:
BEN WAS REALLY PISSED OFF WITH ROGER -- AS WAS TOM
KARL I GUESS (NOT YET TALKED TO HIM). ALL OF HIS POINTS
CAN BE SHOT DOWN, BUT IT IS A PAIN NONE THE LESS.
APPARENLTY JUDY CURRY EXPOSED HER INFERIORITY COMPLEX
(ANS HER INFERIORITY).

Tom,
Off tomorrow and not back in CRU till March 10. I'm not supposed to
talk to anyone of the report authors ! There was a lot of odd things
said after the presentations in Chicago last week. We're charged with
writing a report, which will be published, but you get to rewrite the report
and no-one sees the one we looked at ! What is the point of publishing it !
Roger Pielke didn't come out of it too well. Some thought he had some
good ideas but didn't express them very well. Most thought he just didn't
express them very well. All thought Ben's was the best chapter. Almost
all think RSS is right. Also why is Fu et al. dismissed as controversial?

A VERY GOOD POINT TO STRESS. THIS IS CHRISTY'S WORDING.

Likely most work will be needed on Ch 6 and 1, then 2-4 and least for 5.
The Exec Summary was deemed OK, but it isn't a summary of the report,

ACTUALLY, IT IS. ALL ITEMS *ARE* IN THE CHAPTERS -- BUT ONLY
THOSE DEEMED MOST IMPORTANT (BY ALL EXCEPT ROGER!!)
MAYBE I WILL HAVE TO DO ANOTHER (SIDE) VERSION THAT CITES THE
SOURCES BY CHAPTER AND LINE NUMBER.

so you'll have to do some major reworking.
Remember I didn't tell you all this. Lots of details to come - not sure when.
Seems a long-winded process.

COMMENTS DUE BY MAY 1, THEN WE HAVE 2 WEEKS TO MODIFY/RESPOND.

Cheers
Phil
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