From: "Kevin Trenberth" <trenbert@ucar.edu>
To: p.jones@uea.ac.uk
Subject: Re: urban heat island - since 1950?  or since 1900
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 20:24:35 -0600 (MDT)
Reply-to: trenbert@ucar.edu

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

