date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:12:14 +1300 from: David Thompson subject: Re: the penultimate draft to: Phil Jones Hi Phil, Thanks again for the comments. Just so you know: - I have dropped any discussion of the time scale to fix the SST problem. - it's hard to pin down an exact value for the drop, since doing so involves some subjective decisions about averaging periods, etc. So I've opted for your more conservative estimate of 0.3. - I've noted that the equation used to calculate the ENSO fit acts to low pass filter and time lag the input ENSO time series. - Sorry for the rogue 'Climate Research Unit' references; I had searched the text file but not the figures file. The paper has to go through an internal approval process by the Hadley Centre. As soon as that's done I'll send the final submitted version to the group. -Dave On Jan 19, 2008, at 5:22 AM, Phil Jones wrote: Dave, Basically happy. A few points, some of the same again. Submit when ready! Have a good weekend! 1. Maybe John can add something on this. This refers to the final paragraph. Skeptics will say - why does it take a year to sort this out! Reviewers might as well! I know John has schedules for work, so this has to be fit in. It could probably be accommodated by saying, it takes time because we are waiting to add in more UK WW2 SST measurements which are being digitized. These will improve the 40-45 period. I still think these SST values in 41-44 are too high. I'm hoping the more obs will reduce the level. 2. The drop of 0.4K in Aug45 in the global mean must mean the drop in SST in Aug45 is of the order of 0.8K. It doesn't look this much - in fact looking at Figs 1 and 2, it looks about the 0.5 in Fig 2. I would suggest you say the drop in Fig 1 is 0.3 and not 0.4. The global average is roughly 0.6*SST and 0.4*land. If the drop is 0.5 in SST it has be 0.3 in the combined. 0.5 is about one tick mark, which is roughly what it is. 3. I still think it would be good to say the ENSO 'part' in Figure 1 looks very like the smoothed SOI series based on Tahiti and Darwin. Indeed you could go along this and pick off dates for El Nino and La Nina. 4. For reference (i) I think Trenberth et al - the chapter 3 from the IPCC AR4 is what you should reference - as opposed to the Technical Summary. In a letter to Nature - you could say this is an analysis of the most studied series in climatology. Thousands of people have looked at the data - and no-one has noticed this before! Aside - If the skeptics had been doing their job properly and didn't start from a biased base, they might have spotted it !!! They start from the premise that the series is wrong. They will be kicking themselves to have missed this. I've always said it is WW2. A number have sort of commented upon this is the context of the figure which is FAQ 9.2 Figure 1 on p703 of WG1 AR4. This is also in the SPM Figure 4. The value for the 1940s pops out of the coloured envelopes, especially for the oceans. The week after next I'll see Daithi Stone who drew this, so ask him what will happen if Aug45-1950 get raised a little. It could make it worse, unless the 50s also go up a little. The figure is all based on the 1901-50 period. So if that is higher, the black obs line drops down. Finally we are the Climatic Research Unit. Do a global edit and get rid of Climate Research Unit. It' in Figure 3 caption at least. Cheers Phil At 00:39 17/01/2008, David Thompson wrote: Hi all, Please find attached the (hopefully) penultimate version of the paper. I have iterated with everyone individually, but if you have any more comments or thoughts on the attached version, please let me know. My hope is to submit the paper by the end of the day Monday (in the US), so if you can get any additional comments to me by then, that would be great (if you need more time, please let me know). The text is attached as a doc and pdf file; the figures are attached as a pdf file. Thanks again.... -Dave  -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [1]www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet Dept of Atmospheric Science Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 USA Phone: 970-491-3338 Fax: 970-491-8449 Hi all, Please find attached the (hopefully) penultimate version of the paper. I have iterated with everyone individually, but if you have any more comments or thoughts on the attached version, please let me know. My hope is to submit the paper by the end of the day Monday (in the US), so if you can get any additional comments to me by then, that would be great (if you need more time, please let me know). The text is attached as a doc and pdf file; the figures are attached as a pdf file. Thanks again.... -Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [2]www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet Dept of Atmospheric Science Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 USA Phone: 970-491-3338 Fax: 970-491-8449 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 [3]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet Dept of Atmospheric Science Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 USA Phone: 970-491-3338 Fax: 970-491-8449