Thursday, December 22, 2011

1176225793.txt

From: Susan Solomon <ssolomon@al.noaa.gov>
To: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk
Subject: Re: urban heat island - since 1950? or since 1900
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:23:13 -0600
Cc: trenbert@ucar.edu, "Phil Jones" <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>

<x-flowed>
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)

</x-flowed>

No comments:

Post a Comment