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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------