cc: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov>
date: Thu, 22 May 2008 11:21:18 -0400
from: Michael Mann <mann@meteo.psu.edu>
subject: Re: Thompson et al paper
to: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>

   thanks  Phil,
   looking forward to reading over the paper as soon as I have a chance, but I'm sure we'll
   have not reason to be critical. Mostly, we want to make sure that the results aren't taken
   out of context and misrepresented by contrarians. The fact that recent warming is likely
   greater than previously estimated seems like the hook to use.
   Will read over carefully and discuss w/ Gavin,
   mike
   p.s. As for Tim Ball, he is so completely discredited (with having lost that lawsuit
   involving him lying about his academic credentials) that nobody but those truly in denial
   would even bother reading his tripe. see e.g.:
   [1]http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1272
   I do find it an amusing curiosity that he actually has a chapter in Bradley and Jones.
   Probably best kept a secret!
   Phil Jones wrote:

      Mike, Gavin,
          OK - as long as you're not critical and remember the embargo. I'll expect Nature
      will be sending the paper around later today to the press embargoed till the middle
      of next week.
         Attached is the pdf. This is the final one bar page and volume numbers. Also
      attached is our latest draft press release. This is likely OK except for the last
     paragraph
      which we're still working on.  There will also be a News and Views item from
      Dick Reynolds and a Nature news piece from Quirin Schiermeier. I don't have either
      of these. I did speak to Quirin on Tuesday and he's also spoke to Dave and John.
      It took me a while to explain the significance of the paper.  I hope to get these later
      two items before I might have to do any interviews early next week. We have
      a bank holiday on Monday in the UK. The press release will go out jointly from
      the Met Office and UEA - not sure exactly when.
          Potentially the key issue is the final Nature sentence which alludes to the
     probable
      underestimation of SSTs in the last few years. Drifters now measuring SSTs dominate
      by over 2 to 1 cf ships. Drifters likely measure SSTs about 0.1 to 0.2 deg C cooler
      than ships, so we could be underestimating SSTs and hence global T. I hope Dick
      will discuss this more. It also means that the 1961-90 average SST that people use
      to force/couple with models is slightly too warm. Ship-based SSTs are in decline - lots
      of issues related to the shipping companies wanting the locations of the ships
      kept secret, also some minor issues of piracy as well. You might want to talk to Scott
     Woodruff
      more about this.
         A bit of background. Loads more UK WW2 logs have been digitized and these will
      be going or have gone into ICOADS. These logs cover the WW2 years as well
      as the late 1940s up to about 1950. It seems that all of these require bucket
     corrections.
      My guess will be that the period from 1945-49 will get raised by up to 0.3 deg C for
     the
      SSTs, so about 0.2 for the combined. In digitizing they have concentrated on the
      South Atlantic/Indian Ocean log books.
      [2] http://brohan.org/hadobs/digitised_obs/docs/    and click on SST to see some
     comparisons.
      The periods mentioned here don't seem quite right as more later 1940s logs have also
     been
      digitized.  There are more log books to digitize for WW2 - they have done about half of
     those
      not already done.
      If anyone wonders where all the RN ships came from, many of those in the S.
     Atlantic/indian
      oceans were originally US ships. The UK got these through the Churchill/Roosevelt deal
     in 1939/40.
      Occasionally some ships needed repairs and the UK didn't have the major parts, so
      this will explain the voyages of a few south of OZ and NZ across the Pacific to Seattle
      and then back into the fray.
      ICOADS are looking into a project to adjust/correct all their log books.
      Also attaching a ppt from Scott Woodruff. Scott knows who signed this!
      If you want me to look through anything then email me.
      I have another paper just accepted in JGR coming out on Chinese temps
      and urbanization. This will also likely cause a stir. I'll send you a copy when
      I get the proofs from AGU. Some of the paper relates to the 1990 paper
      and the fraud allegation against Wei-Chyung Wang. Remind me on this in
      a few weeks if you hear nothing.
      Cheers
      Phil
      PS CRU/Tyndall won a silver medal for our garden at the Chelsea Flower Show -
      the theme of the show this year was the changing climate and how it affects gardening.
      Clare Goodess was at the garden on Tuesday. She said she never stopped
      for her 4 hour stint of talking to the public - only one skeptic. She met the
     environment minister.
      She was talking about the high and low emissions garden. The minister (Phil Woolas)
      seemed to think that the emissions related to the ability of the plants to extract
      CO2 from the atmosphere!  He'd also not heard of the UHI!  Still lots of education
      needed.
      PPS Our web server has found this piece of garbage - so wrong it is unbelievable that
      Tim Ball wrote a decent paper in Climate Since AD 1500. I sometimes wish I'd never
      said this about the land stations in an email. Referring to Alex von Storch just
      shows how up to date he is.
      [3] http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3151
     At 20:12 21/05/2008, Michael Mann wrote:

     Hi Phil,
     Gavin and I have been discussing, we think it will be important for us to do something
     on the Thompson et al paper as soon as it appears, since its likely that naysayers are
     going to do their best to put a contrarian slant on this in the blogosphere.
     Would you mind giving us an advance copy. We promise to fully respect Nature's embargo
     (i.e., we wouldn't post any article until the paper goes public) and we don't expect to
     in any way be critical of the paper. We simply want to do our best to help make sure
     that the right message is emphasized.
     thanks in advance for any help!
     mike
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of
Meteorology
Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker
Building
FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University
email:  [4]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013

[5]
http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm


     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    [6]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
     NR4 7TJ
     UK
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology              Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                    FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University      email:  [7]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013

[8]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm

