date: Tue May 12 10:05:13 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: CRUTEM4 to: "peter.thorne" Peter, I was assuming a paper on HadCRUT4 - combination of HadSST3 and CRUTEM4. I don't think there is enough on CRUTEM4 alone to make a paper. It needs some science - the revisions to the error model, and explaining what this means seems more useful. Saying how we updated all the stations is only interesting to nerds like us. Nerds like CA wouldn't understand it anyway! McIntyre might, if we lost all his mindless supporters. A separate paper following the error model through to D&A is a possibility for a second one. When next on a plane/train or time to spare have a look at the attached. Cheers Phil At 09:53 12/05/2009, peter.thorne wrote: Phil, I can't believe that people think it remotely reasonable behaviour to send that sort of crud. They'd never say that to your face. I guess their home is just that much more cosy and impersonal. Cash would need spending in FY09/10 as I understand it, but someone for six months (assuming they could start this Sept.) could be a route forwards. It would be a good paper for them career-wise. HadSST3 is in first draft form. I'm not sure what papers you assume will arise. I think we were thinking of developing HadSST3 and CRUTEM4 seperately (but in a joined up way) and publishing as separate papers and then doing a paper that covers combination to HadCRUT4 and perhaps, for example, a d&a sensitivity to error model assumptions. Peter On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 09:43 +0100, Phil Jones wrote: > Peter, > Below is one of three emails I got last night following a new thread on CA. > I'll ignore them and wait for the FOI requests, which we have dealt > with before. > I did send an email to Thomas Stocker alerting him up to comment #17. > These are all about who changed what in various chapters of AR4. I > expect these > to get worse with AR5. > > Anyway back to the matter in hand. > > I'm planning to come down to see Ian Simpson (probably on June > 1). I'll get back > to David on this later today. > We've done some of what you aim for. We've sorted out the new Canadian > WMO numbers and have extra data for Australia and NZ in. Australia comes in > by email once a month. I'll have to find a new contact in NZ now > Jim Salinger has > been sacked - but it's only a small country. Iran is pretty good. > The US is the large bit of work. The US already has better > station density than > almost anywhere else, so the effort won't make much difference. But > it is probably > worth doing, as it would reduce errors - even if no-one understands > them. Glad > you got the poor paper to review! > Soon we will be adding data for the Greater Alpine Region (32 sites) which > go back to 1760. These data all have adjustments for screen issues prior to > about 1880. This makes summers cooler by about 0.4 deg C and winters about > the same. Similarly, we will also add a load of stations for Spain > (again with Screen > biases in). There is probably more we could add for European countries, > but again it is likely to make little difference, except to lower errors. > The real issue is South America and Africa. We have the whole > Argentine network, > but this is only digitized back to 1959 and the data we had wasn't > that bad anyway. > Problem in South America is Brazil. Africa is OK in a few > countries, but poor in many. > We could add loads in China. > Issue with all this is that most of the additions wouldn't be > available from whenever > we stop. We can probably do the US in real time like Australia. > We've also been trying to add in the precip for many of these > extra stations (not > the Alpine countries and Spain). > There is a timing issue. As I understand HadSST3 won't be > available to be merged > with until it is successfully reviewed. So need to consider this as well. > > A final issue is people here. We're OK for most of 2010 for all. > We have a good > student finishing a PhD by Sept who wants to stay, so couldn't > really do anything > till then. > > Cheers > Phil > > > Dear Mr Jones > > As a UK tax payer from the productive economy, could you please > explain why you restrict access to data sets that are gathered using > tax payer funds e.g. CRUTEM3. Can you believe how embarassing this is > to a UK TAX PAYER, putting up with your amateurish non disclosure of > enviromental information. > > For reference [1]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5962 refers to your > absymal attitude to public data, although this is just the latest in > an embarassing set of reasonable requests from CRU, who the hell do > you think you are? There will of course be an FOI on the back of this > > Regards > Ian > > > At 08:54 12/05/2009, peter.thorne wrote: > >Phil, > > > >there may be some money this FY, substantial sums. Management here are > >casting around for ideas. As its to be spent this FY its largely going > >to be consultant work as we never have a cats chance in hell of > >recruiting on that timescale. What resource do you think we could > >contract from CRU (you, Harry, others?) for doing a CRUTEM4 which I > >would maintain had two aims ... > > > >1. Rescue and incorporation of recent data (I'm pinging NCDC too to see > >what they could do vis-a-vis collating and sending the non-wmo US > >stations and other data you may not have ... their bi-lats may have sig. > >extra stations for Iran, Aus, Canada etc.) > > > >2. A more robust error model that led to production of a set of equi- > >probable potential gridded products (HadSST3 will do simnilarly so we > >could combine to form HadCRUT4 equi-probable). This error model > >determination would ideally be modular so that we could assess how wrong > >our assumptions about the error would have to be to "matter" and what > >error sources are important for our ability to characterise the long- > >term trend (trivially these will be the red noise I know but then most > >people seem blind to the trivial sadly ...). The HadCRUT3 paper clearly > >started well down that path but a recent paper I had the displeasure of > >reviewing on my way back from WMO shows its poorly understood > >(deliberately so in this particular case ...). > > > >We have a meeting Thursday. If it passes muster there we'll put it to > >DECC and see what happens. No promises. > > > >This would mean we'd have HadCRUT4 which would be HadSST3 + CRUTEM4 each > >with more data and better error models well before AR5 which seems > >sensible ... > > > >Mr. Fraudit never goes away does he? How often has he been told that we > >don't have permission? Ho hum. Oh, I heard that fraudit's Santer et al > >comment got rejected. That'll brighten your day at least a teensy bit? > > > >Peter > >-- > >Peter Thorne Climate Research Scientist > >Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB > >tel. +44 1392 886552 fax +44 1392 885681 > >[2]www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs > > 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.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Peter Thorne Climate Research Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB tel. +44 1392 886552 fax +44 1392 885681 [3]www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs 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.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------