From	Kevin Trenberth	Date	Tue, 10 Apr 2007 20:24:35 -0600 (MDT)
To	Phil Jones
Subject	Re: urban heat island - since 1950? or since 1900
Phil seems like we should do the same if we can in our galley proof. Kevin > Phil > Thanks for your reply. I have removed the > 'since 1950' from the TS. That was taken from > your ES but in view of this discussion I think > the reader needs to go to the chapter. > > Please note that 'Since 1950' is not (and never > was) in the SPM, so there is no interplay at all > between the issues being discussed in this series > of emails and anything that occurred in Paris or > prior to Paris. > > It was, of course, for you to decide what you > wanted in your ES and how to mesh that with the > main text of your chapter. It is entirely a > 'within chapter' issue. > > best regards, > Susan > > > > > At 4:30 PM +0100 4/10/07, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: >> Susan, Kevin, >> See attachment, I realise this is an important issue, >>as this wil be one of the areas the skeptics will go over >> with a fine toothcomb. I'm happy either way - either >> with the since 1950 or without. I've explained why it is >> there. >> >> I'm back in CRU tomorrow am. I'm also >> away on Sunday for the next 2 weeks, so if there is more >> to resolve, we need to do this by Friday. >> >> Cheers >> Phil >> >> >>> Kevin, >>> Thanks for thinking about this. Based on the chapter referencing >>> Brohan and explicitly saying 1900 regarding the 0.006/decade figure >>> which is what is used as the bottom line, I wonder if this is a typo >>> and since 1950 should perhaps be since 1900 in your ES. >>> >>> The same thing occurs in the TS, and I am checking page proofs for >>> that which is why I got to wondering and checked back in chapter 3, >>> where I found this conundrum. If it is correct as 1950, fine, but >>> it doesn't look like that to me. >>> >>> I'll wait to hear from Phil, hopefully tomorrow. >>> bests, >>> Susan >>> >>> >>> At 5:28 PM -0600 4/9/07, Kevin Trenberth wrote: >>>>Susan >>>>This is Phil's territory so I'll leave to him to follow up further. Are >>>>you suggesting that something should change? Seems to me that maybe >>>>removing the "(since 1950)" from ES might help? I am on travel rest >>>> of >>>>the week. >>>>Kevin >>>> >>>>> Kevin >>>>> Thanks for your reply. >>>>> >>>>> I am referring to the final distributed draft chapter, which was >>>>> before >>>>> Paris. >>>>> >>>>> Your ES pre-Paris (and post-Paris) says 1950 but this seems >>>>> inconsistent with the text of your pre-Paris chapter, where the >>>>> hemispheric and global values are given, and post-1900 is stated at >>>>> that point. The value of 0.006 is clearly associated with >>>>> post-1900 >>>>> in the text. >>>>> >>>>> I don't think that this has anything to do with the clarifications >>>>> to >>>>> what was meant regarding UHI that were made in the SPM at Paris. >>>>> The >>>>> question is a lack of consistency in the pre-Paris chapter's ES and >>>>> main text. >>>>> >>>>> Please consult your final draft chapter and let me know. >>>>> >>>>> bests >>>>> Susan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> At 3:18 PM -0600 4/9/07, Kevin Trenberth wrote: >>>>>>Susan >>>>>>Phil is best to answer this. You may recall this was fiddled with >>>>>>after Paris and the values cited from 1900 were inserted at that >>>>>>stage based on one study. Earlier in the text you will see that >>>>>>most studies are from 1950 on: including those of Parker 2004, 2006, >>>>>>Li et al 2004, etc, and the DTR, Tmax and Tmin are given in Fig 3.2 >>>>>>only after 1950; those are indicators also. So in the ES we refer >>>>>>to the several studies since 1950 but the value cited does indeed >>>>>>refer to the period since 1900. Phil would have to say whether >>>>>>this could be changed: certainly, with current wording it explicitly >>>>>>calls out the studies of the post 1950 period and would not be >>>>>>appropriate to change to 1900. >>>>>> >>>>>>My sense is that the awkwardness comes from the late edit. >>>>>>Kevin >>>>>> >>>>>>Susan Solomon wrote: >>>>>>>Kevin and Phil, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>In checking over some text, I noted a statement in your ES that UHI >>>>>>>effects are negligible, where since 1950 is indicated as the >>>>>>>temporal period of application. In the text of the chapter, it >>>>>>>looks more like 1900 to me. Should this be 1950, or 1900? or >> >>>>>something else? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Thanks, >>>>>>>Susan >>>>>> >>>>>>-- >>>>>>**************** >>>>>>Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu >>>>>>Climate Analysis Section, >>>>>> www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html >>>>>>NCAR >>>>>>P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318 >>>>>>Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax) >>>>>> >>>>>>Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>___________________ >>>>Kevin Trenberth >>>>Climate Analysis Section, NCAR >>>>PO Box 3000 >>>>Boulder CO 80307 >>>>ph 303 497 1318 >>>>http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html >>> >>> >> >>Attachment converted: Junior:urbanizationESTS.doc (WDBN/«IC») (00167B2F) > > ___________________ Kevin Trenberth Climate Analysis Section, NCAR PO Box 3000 Boulder CO 80307 ph 303 497 1318 http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html