date: Thu May  8 12:56:46 2008
from: Phil Jones 
subject: Re: UEA Environmental Sciences Website
to: BuleyAL@aol.com
    Dear Tony,
       Lawson is just trying to sell his book!  There may be something of relevance in it
    wrt the economics of trying to do anything on climate change, but as far as the
    science behind climate change he is just wrong.
       It is hard for the general public to follow these issues. The blog sites don't help
    that much. Real Climate is the best - it is run by real climatologists. They don't have
    as much there as some of the others, but the people running it have to do day jobs.
       Legates and Baliunas don't know anything about proxy data. I think you should have
    said Soon and Baliunas. They don't have any background in paleoclimatology, so you
    can forget them. The latest info is in the IPCC Report, but I know it is almost 1000pp.
    You only get sound science in the proper climate science journals. These are the
    ones peer-reviewed by climate scientists. Journals have what is called an Impact Factor
    based partly on citation counts. If they don't mention this they aren't worth reading.
      The IPCC report has a section on the MWP. Even though this was likely more regional
    than many believe (e.g. there is growing evidence it was cooler in the Equatorial Pacific
    during this time, with more La Nina events) we have been warmer than then since the 1980s.
       Glaciers are retreating across the world (except in a few regions such as southern
   Norway
    where they respond to winter precip). In the Alps man-made items are being found under
    the retreat. Most come from 6000 years ago, with some from Roman times. None is
    Medieval.
      Attached is a paper on the last few millennia.
    Cheers
    Phil
   At 11:32 08/05/2008, you wrote:
     Dear Phil,
     Thank you for your reply to my "Lord Lawson" query.  That is very clear and seems to
     confirm my concern  about Lawson's attempt to spin the interpretation of your data.
     I notice that, in his book, he has also grabbed on to the Legates and Baliunis attack on
     the "Hockey Stick " model which I know you have a direct interest in.  They seem to have
     good scientific pedigrees so presumably their arguments should be taken seriously.  How
     is that model holding up to this scepticism?  Is the issue about the "medieval Warm
     period" resolved?
     For the majority of the general non-scientific public (which includes many of my
     friends) these are pretty esoteric debates and they views can be easily swayed either
     way by a plausible book or documentary.  I feel it is important that people like myself,
     scientifically trained but not as climate scientists, should have a good up-to-date
     understanding of the issues so as to be able to explain and support sound scientific
     argument on such an important matter.
     I have read Sir John Houghton's book and found it very helpful.
     Regards
     Tony Buley
     PS My apologies for twice misspelling "Hadley" in my email. A phenomenon known among us
     over 60s as the "Senior Moment effect".
     In a message dated 06/05/2008 10:46:38 GMT Standard Time, p.jones@uea.ac.uk writes:
           Dear Tony,
              Have also just read the full page spread in Saturday's Guardian, and
           a couple of response letters in today's issue.
               Lawson doesn't understand climate change (the science). He may be right
           that we won't be able to do much about slowing the rate of change. He thinks
           like a politician and not a scientist.
              What he doesn't understand is that increasing greenhouse gases are only
           one factor affecting climate change. They dominate on timescales beyond decadal,
           but on the interannual, natural variability dominates. We are relatively cool
           now because of the La Nina event, which is waning. The next warmest year will
           be the year of or the year after the next El Nino event.
              This has all been explained countless times before.
            [1]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080103.html
           In finding this link, I notice that the Met Office have put up another release
           on April 29.
            [2]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080429.html
           There is no after the event in all this. Climatologists have known for years
           that much of the variability of global T (and NH and SH) is due to El Nino and
           La Nina.  The attached is from our in-house magazine (Climate Monitor) from 1990.
           It is all a matter of timescales. The 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the
          2000s
           (so far) are clearly warmer than the 1990s.
           There are a lot of silly op-ed pieces on climate change and recent temperatures.
          Most
           are just not worth responding to. The latest has been about the drop in
          temperatures
           between Jan07 and Jan08. This is as a result of La Nina.
           You might like to look at the recent temperatures on our site for March08.
            [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/tgrid/2008/
           March08 has been the warmest March on record for the NH land. This is just
           because the snow cover over Eurasia disappeared quickly during Feb. See these
           time series and maps.
            [4]http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/
           Look at Eurasia snow cover extent for Dec, Jan, Feb, Mar08. March is only
           one month.
           Cheers
           Phil
          At 12:17 05/05/2008, you wrote:
          Dear Professor Jones,
          I was away on holiday when Karen Crockett sent me this mail, hence the delay.
          In a sense the moment has passed now but I became marginally involved in a dispute
          between Lord Lawson (he of the new book about "so-called global warming" -his
          phrase, not mine) and Dr E Robert Watson in the letter columns of the Financial
          Times where Lawson had repeated his claim, made in his  book, that average global
          temperatures have not risen this century - a statement subsequently strongly
          disputed by Watson.
          I wrote a slightly whimsical letter to the Editor of the FT , which was published,
          saying that I was inclined to believe "the trained chemist rather than the former
          financial journalist" and it was then that Lawson replied quoting joint research by
          CRU and the Hadler Institute as supporting his statement.
          Having examined the websites of Hadler and CRU it appears that while apparently
          literally correct (as temperatures seem to have temporarily stabilised around a
          point slightly lower than that reached in 1998),  Lawson has ignored the fact that
          seven of the ten warmest years ever recorded have occurred since 2000 and that, by
          attempting to pooh pooh a highly plausible explanation for this (La Nina) by
          describing it as "after the event", he has put own spin on the figures to support
          his own extreme scepticism.   In the process he is attempting to "distort the
          underlying scientific truth of these data" (my phrase).  As a one-time scientist
          myself (now retired) I  am particularly incensed by non-scientists who try to place
          simplistic interpretations on complex data.
          As I say, the argument moved on while I was on holiday where I did not have access
          to the FT but, if you have time to reply,  I would be interested to know your views
          on Lawson's interpretation of your own research data.   If he has a point he should
          be given due credit.
          I think it is important because Lawson is still an influential figure.
          With kind regards
          Tony Buley
          Dr A L Buley
          Oxford OX2 6XP
          In a message dated 23/04/2008 11:45:08 GMT Standard Time, k.crockett@uea.ac.uk
          writes:
                Dear Tony,
                Following your call on Monday regarding information on our website, I have had
                some email correspondence from Professor Phil Jones. He is currently away and
                so unable to talk by phone, but if you can email your query to him via
                [5]p.jones@uea.ac.uk he shall try and help you from there.
                Regards,
                Karen.
                * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
                Karen Crockett
                Local Support Secretary and CSERGE Secretary
                School of Environmental Sciences (2.36)
                University of East Anglia
                Norwich
                NR4 7TJ
                Tel:  +44 (0)1603 593176
                Fax: +44 (0)1603 591327
                * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
          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
          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   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
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------