Thursday, December 29, 2011

1231350711.txt

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
To: "Folland, Chris" <chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: FW: Temperatures in 2009
Date: Wed Jan 7 12:51:51 2009

Chris,
Apart from contacting Gavin and Mike Mann (just informing them)
you should appeal.
In essence it means that Real Climate is a publication.
If you do go to GRL I wouldn't raise the issue with them. Happy to
be a suggested reviewer if you do go to GRL.
Cheers
Phil
Chris,
Worth pursuing - even if only GRL.
Possibly worth sending a note to Gavin Schmidt at Real Climate
to say what Nature have used as a refusal!
Cheers
Phil
At 17:01 06/01/2009, you wrote:

Phil
Thanks. Bad news today. Nature Geosciences wont publish this because the Real Climate
Blog mentions (more vaguely) the basic content of what we have written. That is indeed
the reason Nature Geosciences have given. It seems blogs can now prevent publication! I
have suggested to Jeff we try GRL but only after raising this issue with them.
Chris
Prof. Chris Folland
Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008)

Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom
Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978
Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050
(International) +44 (0)113 336 1072)
<[1]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk>
Fellow of the Met Office
Hon. Professor of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Jones [[2]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: 06 January 2009 14:56
To: Folland, Chris
Subject: RE: FW: Temperatures in 2009
Chris,
City population size and urban effects are not related that well. I think
a lot depends on where the city is in relation to the sea, large rivers and water
bodies as well.
I did try and get population figures for London from various times during the 20th
century.
I found these, but the area of London they referred to kept changing. Getting the
areas proved more difficult, as I though population density would be better. Those I
could find showed that the area was increasing, so I sort of gave up on it.
Whether London is saturated is not clear. The fact that LWC has a bigger
UHI than SJP implies that if you did more development around SJP it could be
raised. I doubt though that there will be any development in the Mall and
on Horseguards Parade!
The Nature Geosciences paper looks good - so hope it gets reviewed favourably.
It will be a useful thing to refer to, but I can't see it cutting any ice with the
skeptics.
They think the models are wrong, and can't get to grips with natural variability!
Thanks for the CV. I see I'm on an abstract for the Hawaii meeting! Only noticed as
it was the last one on your list.
Cheers
Phil
At 10:04 06/01/2009, you wrote:
>Phil
>
>Maybe in your conclusions you should comment on the fact that some more
>general studies show relationships between the population or size of
>cities and the urban effect. This seems not to be true here. Is there
>any evidence from other studies of a "saturation effect" on urban
>warming in some cases? And why this might be so?
>
>Chris
>
>
>Prof. Chris Folland
>Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008)
>
>Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United
>Kingdom
>Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk
>Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978
>Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050
> (International) +44 (0)113 336 1072)
><[3]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk> Fellow of the Met Office Hon. Professor
>of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Phil Jones [[4]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
>Sent: 05 January 2009 17:02
>To: Folland, Chris
>Subject: RE: FW: Temperatures in 2009
>
>
> Chris,
> Will look at later. Here is the UHI paper I submitted today to Weather.
> Didn't take long to do. I started doing it as people kept on saying the UHI
> in London (and this is only Central London) was getting worse. I couldn't
> see it and Rothamsted and Wisley confirmed what I'd thought.
>
> Any comments appreciated. Remember it is just Weather,
> and I tried to make it quite simple ! David did see it last month.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
>At 16:46 05/01/2009, you wrote:
> >Phil
> >
> >Strictly very much in confidence, this was submitted to Nature
> >Geosciences just before Xmas after discussion with them.
> >
> >Night-time temperatures seem to have been rather underestimated here
> >as well since the cold spell started. Daytime forecasts have been
> >better, allowing for 1000 feet of elevation. Real cold would shock all under 30!
> >
> >Chris
> >
> >
> >Prof. Chris Folland
> >Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June 2008)
> >
> >Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United
> >Kingdom
> >Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk
> >Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978
> >Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050
> > (International) +44 (0)113 336 1072)
> ><[5]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk> Fellow of the Met Office Hon. Professor
> >of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Phil Jones [[6]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
> >Sent: 05 January 2009 16:18
> >To: Johns, Tim; Folland, Chris
> >Cc: Smith, Doug; Johns, Tim
> >Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009
> >
> >
> > Tim, Chris,
> > I hope you're not right about the lack of warming lasting
> > till about 2020. I'd rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office
> > press release with Doug's paper that said something like -
> > half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on
> > record, 1998!
> > Still a way to go before 2014.
> >
> > I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying
> > where's the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal
> > scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.
> >
> > Chris - I presume the Met Office continually monitor the weather
> > forecasts.
> > Maybe because I'm in my 50s, but the
> language used in the forecasts seems
> > a bit over the top re the cold. Where I've been for the last 20
> > days (in Norfolk)
> > it doesn't seem to have been as cold as the forecasts.
> >
> > I've just submitted a paper on the UHI for London - it is 1.6
> > deg C for the LWC.
> > It comes out to 2.6 deg C for night-time minimums. The BBC forecasts has
> > the countryside 5-6 deg C cooler than city centres on recent nights.
> > The paper
> > shows the UHI hasn't got any worse since 1901 (based on St James Park
> > and Rothamsted).
> >
> > Cheers
> > Phil
> >
> >
> >
> >At 09:34 05/01/2009, Tim Johns wrote:
> > >Dear Chris, cc: Doug
> > >
> > >Mike McCracken makes a fair point. I am no expert on the
> > >observational uncertainties in tropospheric SO2 emissions over the
> > >recent past, but it is certainly the case that the SRES A1B
> > >scenario (for instance) as seen by different integrated assessment
> > >models shows a range of possibilities. In fact this has been an
> > >issue for us in the ENSEMBLES project, since we have been running
> > >models with a new mitigation/stabilization scenario "E1" (that has
> > >large emissions reductions relative to an A1B baseline, generated
> > >using the IMAGE
> > >IAM) and comparing it with A1B (the AR4 marker version, generated
> > >by a different IAM). The latter has a possibly unrealistic
> > >secondary SO2 emissions peak in the early 21st C - not present in
> > >the IMAGE E1 scenario, which has a steady decline in SO2 emissions
> > >from 2000. The A1B scenario as generated with IMAGE also show a
> > >decline rather than the secondary emissions peak, but I can't say
> > >for sure which is most likely to be "realistic".
> > >
> > >The impact of the two alternative SO2 emissions trajectories is
> > >quite marked though in terms of global temperature response in the
> > >first few decades of the 21st C (at least in our HadGEM2-AO
> > >simulations, reflecting actual aerosol forcings in that model plus
> > >some divergence in GHG forcing). Ironically, the E1-IMAGE scenario
> > >runs, although much cooler in the long term of course, are
> > >considerably warmer than
> > >A1B-AR4 for several decades! Also - relevant to your statement -
> > >A1B-AR4 runs show potential for a distinct lack of warming in the
> > >early 21st C, which I'm sure skeptics would love to see replicated
> > >in the real world... (See the attached plot for illustration but
> > >please don't circulate this any further as these are results in
> > >progress, not yet shared with other ENSEMBLES partners let alone
> > >published). We think the different short term warming responses are
> > >largely attributable to the different SO2 emissions trajectories.
> > >
> > >So far we've run two realisations of both the E1-IMAGE and A1B-AR4
> > >scenarios with HadGEM2-AO, and other partners in ENSEMBLES are
> > >doing similar runs using other GCMs. Results will start to be
> > >analysed in a multi-model way in the next few months. CMIP5 (AR5)
> > >prescribes similar kinds of experiments, but the implementation
> > >details might well be different from ENSEMBLES experiments wrt
> > >scenarios and their
> > >SO2 emissions trajectories (I haven't studied the CMIP5 experiment
> > >fine print to that extent).
> > >
> > >Cheers,
> > >Tim
> > >
> > >On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 21:31 +0000, Folland, Chris wrote:
> > > > Tim and Doug
> > > >
> > > > Please see McCrackens email.
> > > >
> > > > We are now using the average of 4 AR4
> > > scenarios you gave us for GHG + aerosol. What is the situation
> > > likely to be for AR5 forcing, particularly anthropogenic aerosols.
> > > Are there any new estimates yet? Pareticularly, will there be a
> > > revision in time for the 2010 forecast? We do in the meantime have
> > > an explanation for the interannual variability of the last decade.
> > > However this fits well only when an underlying net GHG+aerosol
> > > warming of 0.15C per decade is fitted in the statistical models.
> > > In a sense the methods we use would automatically fit to a reduced
> > > net warming rate so Mike McCracken can be told that. In other
> > > words the method creates it own transient climate sensitivity for
> > > recent warming. But the forcing rate underlying the method
> > > nevertheless perhaps sits a bit uncomfortably with the
> absolute forcing figures we are using from AR4.
> > > However having said this, interestingly, the statistics and
> > > DePreSys are in remarkable harmony about the temperature of 2009.
> > > >
> > > > Any guidance welcome
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Prof. Chris Folland
> > > > Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting (from 2 June
> > > > 2008)
> > > >
> > > > Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter,
> > > Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom
> > > > Email: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk
> > > > Tel: +44 (0)1647 432978
> > > > Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050
> > > > (International) +44 (0)113 336 1072)
> > > > <[7]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk> Fellow of the Met Office Hon.
> > > > Professor of School of Environmental
> > > Sciences, University of East Anglia
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Mike MacCracken [[8]mailto:mmaccrac@comcast.net]
> > > > Sent: 03 January 2009 16:44
> > > > To: Phil Jones; Folland, Chris
> > > > Cc: John Holdren; Rosina Bierbaum
> > > > Subject: Temperatures in 2009
> > > >
> > > > Dear Phil and Chris--
> > > >
> > > > Your prediction for 2009 is very interesting
> > > (see note below for notice that went around to email list for a
> > > lot of US Congressional staff)--and I would expect the analysis
> > > you have done is correct. But, I have one nagging question, and
> > > that is how much SO2/sulfate is being generated by the rising
> > > emissions from China and India (I know that at least some plants
> > > are using desulfurization--but that antidotes are not an
> > > inventory). I worry that what the western nations did in the mid
> > > 20th century is going to be what the eastern nations do in the
> > > next few decades--go to tall stacks so that, for the near-term,
> > > "dilution is the solution to pollution". While I understand there
> > > are efforts to get much better inventories of CO2 emissions from
> > > these nations, when I asked a US EPA representative if their
> > > efforts were going to also inventory
> > > SO2 emissions (amount and height of emission), I was told they
> > > were not. So, it seems, the scientific uncertainty generated by
> > > not having good data from the mid-20th century is going to be
> > > repeated in the early 21st century (satellites may help on optical
> > > depth, but it would really help to know what is being emitted).
> > > >
> > > > That there is a large potential for a cooling
> > > influence is sort of evident in the IPCC figure about the present
> > > sulfate distribution--most is right over China, for example,
> > > suggesting that the emissions are near the surface--something also
> > > that is, so to speak, 'clear' from the very poor visibility and
> > > air quality in China and India. So, the quick, fast, cheap fix is
> > > to put the SO2 out through tall stacks. The cooling potential also
> > > seems quite large as the plume would go out over the ocean with
> > > its low albedo--and right where a lot of water vapor is
> > > evaporated, so maybe one pulls down the water vapor feedback a
> > > little and this amplifies the sulfate cooling influence.
> > > >
> > > > Now, I am not at all sure that having more
> > > tropospheric sulfate would be a bad idea as it would limit
> > > warming--I even have started suggesting that the least expensive
> > > and quickest geoengineering approach to limit global warming would
> > > be to enhance the sulfate loading--or at the very least we need to
> > > maintain the current sulfate cooling offset while we reduce CO2
> > > emissions (and presumably therefore, SO2 emissions, unless we
> > > manage
> > > things) or we will get an extra bump of warming. Sure, a bit more
> > > acid deposition, but it is not harmful over the ocean (so we
> > > only/mainly emit for trajectories heading out over the ocean) and
> > > the impacts of deposition may well be less that for global warming
> > > (will be a tough comparison, but likely worth looking at). Indeed,
> > > rather than go to stratospheric sulfate injections, I am leaning
> > > toward tropospheric, but only during periods when trajectories are
> > > heading over ocean and material won't get rained out for 10 days or so.
> > > > Would be an interesting issue to do
> research on--see what could be done.
> > > >
> > > > In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is
> > > right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I
> > > think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over
> > > past decade as a result of variability--that explanation is wearing thin.
> > > I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you
> > > also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have
> > > a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong.
> > > Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us--the world is really
> > > cooling, the models are no good, etc.
> > > And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.
> > > >
> > > > We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared.
> > > >
> > > > Best, Mike MacCracken
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Researchers Say 2009 to Be One of Warmest Years on Record
> > > >
> > > > On December 30, climate scientists from the
> > > UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia projected 2009
> > > will be one of the top five warmest years on record. Average
> > > global temperatures for 2009 are predicted to be 0.4�C above the
> > > 1961-1990 average of 14 � C. A multiyear forecast using a Met
> > > Office climate model indicates a �rapid return of global
> > > temperature to the long-term warming trend,� with an increasing
> > > probability of record temperatures after 2009. �The fact that
> > > 2009, like 2008, will not break records does not mean that global warming has gone
away . . .
> > > . What matters is the underlying rate of warming,� said Dr. Phil
> > > Jones, the director of climate research at the University of East
> > > Anglia. The presence of La Nina during the
> last year partially masked this underlying rate.
> > > �Phenomena such as El Nino and La Nina have a significant
> > > influence on global surface temperature,� said Dr. Chris Folland
> > > of the Met Office Hadley Center.
> > > > �Further warming to record levels is likely
> > > once a moderate El Nino develops.� The transition from a La Nina
> > > effect to an El Nino one is expected late next year.
> > > >
> > > > For additional information see:
> > > > [9]http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE4BT49920081230
> > > >
> > > [10]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/4030681/New-Years-Eve-s
> > > et
> > > -t
> > > o-be-c
> > > > older-than-in-Iceland.html
> > > > [11]http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aTHzt5EA3UXs
> > > > [12]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081230.
> > > > ht
> > > > ml
> > > >
> > > >
> > >--
> > > Tim Johns Manager Global Coupled Modelling
> > > Met Office Hadley Centre
> > > FitzRoy Rd Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom
> > > Tel: +44 (0)1392 886901 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681
> > > E-mail: tim.johns@metoffice.gov.uk [13]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk
> > >
> > > Please note I work part time, normally Monday-Tuesday
> > > Thursday-Friday
> > >
> > > Met Office climate change predictions can now be viewed on Google
> > > Earth [14]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/google/
> > >
> > >
> >
> >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
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>-----
>
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

1. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/
2. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
3. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/
4. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
5. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/
6. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
7. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/
8. mailto:mmaccrac@comcast.net
9. http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE4BT49920081230
10. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/4030681/New-Years-Eve-s
11. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aTHzt5EA3UXs
12. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081230
13. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/
14. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/google/

No comments:

Post a Comment