cc: Gabi Hegerl <gabi.hegerl@ed.ac.uk>
date: Fri Apr 17 17:09:37 2009
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Re: input for proposal
to: claudia tebaldi <ctebaldi@climatecentral.org>, Michael Wehner <MFWehner@lbl.gov>

    Claudia, Mike,
       I dropped a few of the reply list.
    The papers that I've been involved with are these four. I can't see the first
    one on the site. I think the fourth may be from the previous project, but
    it could be from the first year.
      The thrust of my input has been in two areas - the humidity dataset
    work (with Nathan). The Nature paper shows that you can
    detect and attribute a climate change signal in surface humidity data. It also
    shows that this increase in q (specific humidity) is a direct result of
    the increase in T. RH stays roughly the same (as a hemispheric average),
    which is something climate models have done for ages. So this was an
    observational proof of a feature that has been with us for ages.
     The J. Climate paper is about the dataset used in the Nature paper.
    The Nature Geosciences paper is Nathan's about Arctic and Antarctic temperatures.
    This completes the detection and attribution for these areas that were omitted
    in Ch 9 of AR4.
    The fourth was about a rapid change that occurred in Europe in the first half
    of the 18th century, so indicating what is possible from just natural changes in
    climate. This was in Task 2.5.
    The work I'm currently doing relates to developing a dataset of the Palmer Drought
    Severity Index (PDSI) for the world's land areas (except for the Antarctic and Greenland).
    Once finished, I'd like to move on to doing some D&A with the dataset.
     The rationale for looking again at PDSI was that there were numerous questions
    about the metric in the comments on Ch 3 of AR4. PDSI is calculated from
    precipitation and potential evapotranspiration (PET). Traditionally PET has been
    calculated with the Thornethwaite formula, but hydrologists don't like this. We've
    calculated PDSI using both Thornethwaite and a Penman formula (this uses more
    than just temperature, including sunshine/cloudiness, vapour pressure and wind).
    Hydrologists like this formula, but as PDSI is based 90% on precip, the use of
    either formula makes very little difference to large-scale patterns of PDSI.
     I still have to write up this PDSI work. I will get there, but there is one paper I
    have to do first.  The PDSI work is in Task 2.4 or 2.5. The IDAG web page seems
    unclear here. I think it should be 2.4.
    Cheers
    Phil
   At 00:02 16/04/2009, claudia tebaldi wrote:

     Dear all,
     Hope this finds you well.
     Michael and I are starting on the new IDAG proposal.
     At this time, we need to ask you for a -- hopefully not too time
     consuming -- form of feedback:
     Could each of you send us -- at the earliest convenience -- a list of
     your IDAG-relevant  publications,  from 2006 to present-day, including
     work in press, and a few paragraphs (or a series of bullet points)
     summarizing the thrust of your D&A activities since the beginning of
     2006?
     This all will go in the "Scientific Background" section of the new proposal.
     Thank you very much from both of us
     best,
     Claudia  & Michael
     --
     Claudia Tebaldi
     Research Scientist, Climate Central
     [1]http://www.climatecentral.org
     currently visiting IMAGe/NCAR
     PO Box 3000
     Boulder, CO 80305
     tel. 303.497.2487

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

