cc: "Pasha.Groisman" <Pasha.Groisman@noaa.gov>, Neil Plummer <N.Plummer@bom.gov.au>, wang@climate.cestm.albany.edu, Russell Vose <Russell.Vose@noaa.gov>, Thomas C Peterson <Thomas.C.Peterson@noaa.gov>
date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:42:16 -0500
from: "Thomas.R.Karl" <Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov>
subject: Re: Climate Audit and our paper from 1990
to: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>

   Thanks Phil,
   We are struggling a bit with a new adjustment scheme to USHCN w/r to indirect vs direct
   adjustments for urban heat islands.  GHCN is another issue still, but all this is clearly
   in the noise.  An important correction we are working on is the cool bias introduced by a
   greater percentage of bouys lately compared to just a decade or two ago.  This effect is at
   least comparable to the urban effect in my view.  Dick Reynolds is working on that one.  I
   am hopeful that Russ Vose and Tom Peterson can work to develop a strategy for us soon.  I
   will ask them to send you a copy for you comments.
   Regards, Tom
   Phil Jones said the following on 2/20/2007 4:01 AM:

      Dear All,
         Remember this paper !
     Jones, P.D., Groisman, P.Ya., Coughlan, M., Plummer, N., Wang, W-C. and Karl, T.R.,
     1990:  Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over
     land.  Nature 347, 169-172.
       Well on this web site, the work is being hotly debated!
     [1]http://www.climateaudit.org/
        Their renewed interest seems to stem from modifications NCDC are
      making to USHCN and as I hear from Tom Peterson to their global and
      hemispheric averages.  Ridiculous statements are being made about the
      NCDC work modifying data to make recent warming greater - and more
      like the CRU data!  On the Russian part of our study, the old chestnut of
      temperature data being modified in Soviet days to make the data cooler
      during the 1930s and 1940s!  Also the Russian network failing apart when
      the Soviet Union came to an end.
         No doubt this will surface somewhere when the Chapter from AR4 comes
      out. We still refer to this paper, but there are more recent studies by
      Tom Peterson and David Parker.  These studies and some earlier ones by
      Tom Karl are still the only ones to look at the issue over large scales.
         Anyway, I'd just thought I'd warn you all in case they ever get their act
      together (and stop their diatribes).
         I'd thought I'd also welcome you to the Hockey Team (but you're all
      reserves) - to get onto the ice, you have to do some paleo work!
      Wei-Chung therefore has a good chance of playing some day.
         It's also good that we're all still working hard in the field, most of us
      writing less unfortunately as we're higher up the ladder!
         1990 seems a long time ago !  By the way, I do have the data
      from the study on disk!  I was wise even when Steve McIntyre first
      requested the data many years ago. I think I could replicate the
      study if I had that rare commodity - time.
         The penultimate paragraph of the 1990 paper was mainly written by
      Tom - thanks. It even has pre-IPCC definitions of likelihood!
       Neil - can you pass this on with my best wishes to Mike.
      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    [2]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
     NR4 7TJ
     UK
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

