From	Phil Jones	Date	Wed Jul 29 17:19:53 2009
To	Thomas C Peterson
Subject	Re: This and that
Tom, Good idea with that BAMS paper. There is also the KNMI web site, which tells that they have restricted data from Europe - on the ECA part. Both despite WMO-Res40! On IPCC, I suggested Thomas to not get too many hangers on amongst the LAs. Chs 2 and 14 are prime candidates for upping the geographic spread. We had about half of ours not doing that much last time. Isn't Tom Karl on the US nominating committee? Away all day tomorrow - CRU barbecue - so will pour down. Cheers Phil At 17:07 29/07/2009, you wrote: Hi, Phil, Yes, Friday-Saturday I noticed that ClimateFraudit had renewed their interest in you. I was thinking about sending an email of sympathy, but I was busy preparing for a quick trip to Hawaii - I left Monday morning and flew out Tuesday evening and am now in the Houston airport on my way home. Data that we can't release is a tricky thing here at NCDC. Periodically, Tom Karl will twist my arm to release data that would violate agreements and therefore hurt us in the long run, so I would prefer that you don't specifically cite me or NCDC in this. But I can give you a good alternative. You can point to the Peterson-Manton article on regional climate change workshops. All those workshops resulted in data being provided to the author of the peer-reviewed paper with a strict promise that none of the data would be released. So far as far as I know, we have all lived up to that agreement - myself with the Caribbean data (so that is one example of data I have that are not released by NCDC), Lucie and Malcolm for South America, Enric for Central America, Xuebin for Middle Eastern data, Albert for south/central Asian data, John Ceasar for SE Asia, Enric again for central Africa, etc. The point being that such agreements are common and are the only way that we have access to quantitative insights into climate change in many parts of the world. Many countries don't mind the release of derived products such as your gridded field or Xuebin's ETCCDI indices, but very much object to the release of actual data (which they might sell to potential users). Does that help? Regarding AR4, I would like to be part of it. I have no idea what role would be deemed appropriate. One thing I noticed with the CLAs in my old chapter is that if one isn't up to doing his part (too busy, or a different concept of timeliness, or ...) it can make for a difficult job. You and I have worked well together before (e.g., GSN) so I'd be delighted to work with you on it and I know you'd hold up your side of the tasks. We touched on this briefly at the AOPC meeting. If I get an opportunity, I would say yes. But I also don't know what the U.S. IPCC nominating approach would be or even who decides that. There is an upcoming IPCC report on extremes and impacts of extremes and I wasn't privy to any insights into the U.S. nominations other than when it was over it was announced in NCDC staff notes that the nominations had been made. However, Kumar had earlier asked if he could nominate me, so he did (I provided him with the details). Regards, Tom Tom, If you look on Climate Audit you will see that I'm all over it! Our ftp site is regularly trawled as I guess yours is. It seems that a Canadian along with two Americans copied some files we put there for MOHC in early 2003. So saying they have the CRU data is not quite correct. What they have is our raw data for CRUTEM2 which went into Jones and Moberg (2003) - data through end of 2002. Anyway enough of my problems - I have a question for you. I'm going to write a small document for our web site to satisfy (probably the wrong word) the 50 or so FOI/EIR requests we've had over the weekend. I will put up the various agreements we have with Met Services. The question - I think you told me one time that you had a file containing all the data you couldn't release (i.e. it's not in GHCN). Presumably this is not in your gridded datasets? Do you know off hand how much data is in this category? Would NCDC mind if I mentioned that you have such data - not the amount/locations/anything, just that there is some? On something positive - attached is the outlines for the proposed Chs in AR5/WG1. Ch1 is something Thomas thinks he can write himself - well with Qin Dahe, so only 13 chapters. There are a lot of issues with overlaps between some of the data chapters 2 with 3, 2 with 5 and 2 with 14. I'm still thinking about whether to get involved. It would be 2 if I decide. At the moment I'd say yes, but I might change my mind tomorrow! Nominations are from Nov09 thru Jan10 with the selection made in April 10. Are you considering getting involved? I have got the IPCC Secretariat and Thomas to raise the FOI issues with the full IPCC Plenary, which meets in Bali in September or October. Thomas is fully aware of all the issues we've had here wrt Ch 6 last time, and others in the US have had. Cheers Phil 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------