cc: d.lister@uea.ac.uk date: Mon Apr 14 13:53:36 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Revised paper to: Qingxiang, Attached is a revised paper and also the file with the responses to the reviewers that I will send back when we resubmit. I have made all the alterations except the final ones that relate to how we interpret Ren et al versus what was done in the paper. There is some tentative text in at the moment on this issue. In the revised paper I've marked text in the following way: red/orange - I will leave this for the reviewers or the editor to see. This is in response to all the other questions. yellow highlighted text in the abstract and conclusions needs to be modified once the text in blue at the end of section 3.3 is agreed. I am still unsure how to interpret Ren et al (2008) and what we should say. I hope you will be sent the series from Figure 3 in Ren et al. over the next few days. In the meantime have a look at what I've written. I think the urban-related warming should be smaller than this, but I can't think of a good way to argue this. I am hopeful of finding something in the data that makes by their Figure 3. I think ours should be smaller as we include west China, but as you say the south should be affected as much as the north. There is no rush to read this. I have an extension to resubmission to May 21. I am also away in Vienna the rest of this week after tomorrow. I will be in Geneva all next week. Best Regards Phil At 03:45 14/04/2008, you wrote: Dear Phil, I agree with most of your thonght. I brought some my thonght below. Cheers Qingxiang ======= 2008-04-11 16:12:46 ÄúÔÚÀ´ÐÅÖÐдµÀ£º======= > Dear Qingxiang, > I'm hopeful of sending you a revised paper to look through next Tuesday. > Most of the changes are quite easy to respond >to, and I'll make these over the > weekend. > The main issue will be to come up with a justifiable estimate of the > urban-related warming over China. The upper >limit is clearly Ren et al's (2008) > value of about 0.1deg C per decade. The lower limit is the one we had before > from your any my work. This is about 0.01 deg C per decade. > In the results in our current paper, if I >take the differences in trends (from Table 5) > for the longest period (1951-2004) and annual >only (taking the difference between > CRUTEM3v or Li and Li versus HadSST2) I would get 0.08-0.11 deg C per decade. > This is 0.25 or 0.22 minus 0.14. This only >seems to work for the annual, but this > is probably due to using SST (as the rural >estimate). Ren gets roughly the same > value for all the seasons in his Table 3. > > I am playing with a transparency of Ren's >Fig 3. This seems to show that his > rural set of series cool relative to the NS >plot mostly in the first half of the period > from 1961-80. In order to assess this better, >can you ask Ren for the time series > values of the 6 plots in his Figure 3? > > This would be useful to get so I can also >look at the differences in trends over the > 1954-83 period. All this would be for northern >China (as opposed to all of China or > the eastern half). > > My reason for asking is to see if the >greatest differences occur during the 1970s > as implied by the HadSST2 comparisons in our paper. > > Also, if I weight the annual trends in Table >3 by the station counts from his Table 1, > then I get 0.24 deg C per decade. This compares >with the 0.29 deg C per decade for > the NS network. To get this I've assumed his station count for N. China from > Table 1 is 272 and not the 282 he says throughout the paper. > > The OWS network has not been assessed for homogeneity, but it is a large > network and the argument in our paper is that homogeneity assessment should > not make any real difference to trends. OWS is a large network, but this network is a little difference between National network (named by Ren's paper) by observational times and daily temperature calculating methods, and the quaulity of the dataset should be mentioned also. > Finally, some will argue that Ren's rural designation (towns up to 50,000) > could still have some urban effects. The SST comparisons in our paper would > suggest that this is not the case. > > All the above is thinking out aloud and >enabling you to give me your thoughts. > > By the way I think that the two reviewers were Ren and Dave Easterling. > > Only Dave Easterling would know what was said in his 1996 paper and also > only Ren (or one of the co-authors) would know >what was in Ren et al (in press > when the review was done) in J. Climate. > > Have a good weekend. > > Phil > > >At 01:45 11/04/2008, you wrote: >>Dear Phil, >> >>They maybe did some adjustment for say >>"homogeneity" with E-P routine without basic QC >>at first, which I think is not help but harm to >>the qulity of the dataset. The quality of OWS >>has not been fully assessed at first, so I think his result can not confirm me. >> >>Cheers >> >>Qingxiang >> >> >> >> >>======= 2008-04-11 00:05:53 ÄúÔÚÀ´ÐÅÖÐдµÀ£º======= >> >> > >> > Qingxiang, >> > Thanks for the comments. >> > >> > One more question - the 1730 OWS stations. Presumably >> > these are not adjusted for homogeneity? >> > >> > I think you've said this. They are not quality controlled. >> > >> > Cheers >> > Phil >> > >> > >> >At 15:54 09/04/2008, you wrote: >> >>Dear Phil, >> >> >> >>I have read Ren's paper and the interesting review comments. >> >>It is a long story of Chinese historical climate network changes >> >>during recent century. But I answer your questions below briefly here. >> >> >> >> Questions >> >> >> >> 1. Guoyu Ren refers to his network over N . China as having 282 >> >> stations. Are >> >> these stations all in the ~730 stations you've used? >> >>No, all the 730 stations are class I and Classs II stations in >> >>China, these stations were national stations. The stations he used >> >>includes some(selected)or all OWSs. I didnot include the OWSs data >> >>in my dataset because several reasons:1) the daily average >> >>temperature calculating methods between these two kinds of stations >> >>are different:National: Daily T= (T2+T8+T14+T20) /20, OWSs: Daily T= >> >>((Tmin+T8)/2+T8+T14+T20)/4; 2) CMA put much affort to maintain those >> >>national stations,and strict rules were used in National stations >> >>during the last 60 years, but for the OWSs, the data has not been >> >>quality controled at present, I think it is too early to talk about >> >>the homogenization of this part of series. >> >> >> >> 2. In terms of your ~730, are these the NS sites that Ren refers >> >> to? I guess >> >> my question is Ren says that there are 143 RCS sites and 530 BWSs. >> >> Are these >> >> in your 730? How do these compare with the 1730 OWSs he refers to? >> >>I guess I just need a breakdown of the numbers of stations in each network >> >> and what are those in your 730? >> >> >> >>Yes, my dataset includes only all the RCSs and BWSs (the difference >> >>between these two kinds of staions is observation times a day, for >> >>thr former, 24 times a day, 4 times for the later, but the data of >> >>these two kinds of data used in my dataset is entirely same(I said >> >>in the front).But I got confidence from the comparason of your >> >>series by 42 stations and mine by ~730 stations. If all the ~730 >> >>stations series are all affected by UHI, I guess the UHI effect in >> >>both our series is too difficult to get the comparable amptitude. >> >>There are no studies published even in Chines on the comparason of >> >>these two kinds of data. >> >> >> >> >> >> 3. Finally in Ren et al's Table 1, the >> number of stations in each category >> >> (rural, small, medium and large city and metropolis) add to 272 (not 282 >> >> as in the paper). Is one of the counts wrong? >> >> >> >>I have not found this, I will check it later. >> >> >> >> 4. One other question? Is Ren et al using all your adjustments? >> >> >> >>I had given my datset to his group. >> >> >> >> All the best >> >> >> >> 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 >> >----------------------------------------------- >> ----------------------------- >> >> > >> > >> >>= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >> >> >>¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡Ö >>Àñ£¡ >> >> >>¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡liqx >>¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡liqx@cma.gov.cn >>¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡2008-04-11 > >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 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡Ö Àñ£¡ ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡liqx ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡liqx@cma.gov.cn ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡2008-04-14 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------