date: Tue Aug 9 13:59:34 2005
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Chapter CLAs ---- OK with the new terminology
to: Tom Wigley
Tom,
We would definitely like the old notation. The Table certainly helps
as it explains it clearly.
It might be worth getting Kevin to email Tom K. I think the
latter is now back from Alaska.
Cheers
Phil
At 13:28 09/08/2005, you wrote:
Phil,
(Confidential)
I am pushing for a return to 'old' notation (T2, T4, etc.) in the CCSP report.
The Table I sent was dreamed up by me, but in collab with Ben. Some people
do not like my suggestion -- see John's comments below.
Consistency with IPCC seems an important issue, so Tom Karl may contact
you. Seems that both you and Kevin support my 'old' notation.
I will send you my original email to CCSP authors on this issue to fill you in. John
has not addressed the points I made. In the end it is a personal issue -- all
notation schemes have flaws.
Tom.
========================
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Chapter CLAs ---- OK with the new terminology proposed by Tom W.?
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 06:21:16 -0600
From: Tom Wigley [1]
Organization: NCAR/CGD
To: [2]John.Lanzante@noaa.gov
CC: _NESDIS NCDC CCSP Temp Trends Lead Authors [3]
References: [4]<200508090413.j794D5Q32711@jrl.gfdl.noaa.gov>
I'd like to point out that IPCC is not going to adopt the (for want of a better handle)
Folland notation.
If we stick to this, we will be an outlier.
Perhaps some liaison with Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth might be useful. I suggest that
this be left
up to Tom Karl.
Tom.
===============
John Lanzante wrote:
All,
Every time one of these things comes up I have to pinch myself to see if I'm
dreaming. It escapes me why, after having charted our course, through countless
emails and 2-day marathon sessions in Chicago, there arises a sudden and
repeated urge to do an about face, knowing full well that at some point down
the road we may very well end up back where we started. Perhaps this is some
kind of Monte Carlo experiment where we are supposed to try every possible
combination?
For perspective, I'd like to remind you that the latest proposed terminology
for the layers is nearly the same as the terminology that we adopted for the
very first draft of this report. Subsequently, we rejected it because it was
too cryptic. Next we adopted terms that were almost abbreviations of plain
English, such as "Low-Trop", etc. At our last Chicago meeting the point was
raised that it would still not be clear to the non-specialist how the various
layers relate to one another. For example, where does 850-300 fit in compared
to Low-Trop? Additionally, there was a discomfort with using "Fu" to describe
layers since none of the other layers are named after individuals and since
such a designation yields no information as to where that layer falls in the
scheme of things. Furthermore, we needed some way to clearly distinguish
between "Fu" in the tropics vs. globally.
Chris Folland then suggested the most recent nomenclature: we designate
each layer by a range of pressures to which it corresponds (or corresponds
approximately). There are several clear advantages to this system. First,
it eliminates the hodge-podge that, for historical reasons, is used in the
literature. There is now a uniformity. Second, it eliminates the use of a
proper name (Fu). Third, the layer names themselves make it readily apparent
the extent to which given layers overlap -- they eliminate the need for a
reader to constantly refer back to the diagram in Chapter 2. When Chris
proposed this scheme it seemed as if a hush fell over the room as people
thought to themselves "why didn't I think of that". When we concluded the
discussion, I don't recall anyone objecting. So now I am very puzzled why,
after all of this time, with so little time left, and much work yet to be
done has this issue surfaced again????? Surely we have more productive things
to do than changing all of the text, all of the figures, and all of the tables?
Maybe it would be a useful exercise to recall why it is we are writing this
report and put ourselves in the shoes of the readers. We were asked by
policymakers to write a report for them. Therefore we need to imagine ourselves
as the uninitiated reader (clean slate). When someone is presented with
terminology such as T2, TLT, T(850-300), T4, TFu, etc., their first thoughts
will undoubtedly be "You must be kidding -- how did these #@$% people come up
with this nonsensical alphabet soup of numbers and letters, without any
rhyme or reason. Why didn't they just refer to them as something like
layer1, layer2, layer3 .... so it would be easy to remember and conceptualize?"
While terms such as T2, TLT, TFu may be familiar to us (the LAs) they are not
going to be familiar to many at all. We (the LAs) are part of a very small
clique. Even the majority of people in the broader climate field are not going
to understand these terms. If one conducted a survey by visiting every
office in GFDL or NCAR or the Hadley Centre and asked what these terms mean,
how many people would have a clue? In the NRC review I could find no criticism
of our terminology "Low-Trop", etc., but I did see repeated reminders that we
need to make this report accessible to a wide audience. Going back to the
secret code does not do that.
The beauty of the terminology that Chris Folland suggested is that the reader
does not need to keep referring back to any diagrams -- does not need to
memorize any terminology -- all the reader needs to understand is that
pressure decreases upwards. Perhaps a few sentences could be added to
Chapter 2, being very explicit in explaining this -- leading the reader
through a few examples.
Tom Karl wrote:
CLA's please provide me with a specific yes or no regarding your
acceptance of the proposed notation table attached. Also let me know if
you will change your text and figures to accommodate.
My answer is a resounding "NO" -- I do not intend to change.
In my opinion, making these changes would be a highly unproductive exercise
and be a decided step backwards in clarity and readability. There is never
going to be an ideal terminology. I see no reason to make things more difficult
for the reader.
You've probably seen the recent stories about incoming NAS president, Ralph
Cicerone. In a Nature article they reported that the 2001 report on Climate
Change Science that he chaired "was widely praised as straightforward and easy
to understand" and "was also phenomenally fast", having been produced in about
a month. Back when Michael Jordon ruled the basketball world, there was the
popular phrase "Be like Mike". I'd like to start a similar movement by
suggesting that we should "Be like Ralph".
_____John
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------