Wednesday, January 18, 2012


date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 18:08:51 +0100
from: Ian Harris <>
subject: Re: [Fwd: CRU Station Lists]


From my project notes:

Summary of Station Changes
This was effected with the program 'findchanges.for', which
identifies three
categories of station - those added, those changed, and those
deleted. Testing
the entire process (ie comparing the original station file with the
rev10 one)
yielded the following counts:

28 orig_vs_rev10.add.dat
483 orig_vs_rev10.chg.dat
53 orig_vs_rev10.del.dat

This agrees with the operations performed.

I'm attaching the first and third of these.

I think the 55 (rather than 53) comes from two stations having their
normals zeroed? Again, from my notes:

newbigfile90x.rev10.dat ** this version locked and sent to Philip
Brohan **
This revision incorporates the changes made as a result of gridding, and
attempting to get the 1961-1990 mean normalised data to nudge 0. The
stations were deleted in the sense that their normals were set to
606070 292 -2 -999 TIMIMOUN ALGERIA 19691974 101969
814010 55 540 4 SAINT LAURENT MARONI FRENCH GUIANA 19611990 101961
..this was because the first only has a few values, with high
variability, and
the second consists of two decades of temperatures with one of missing
values in between, and the earlier decade is significantly warmer
than the

Sorry - I don't even remember WRITING this never mind the context! I
would note that the final sentence could easily be misinterpreted;
what I should have said is that it indicated that the data was from
two disparate stations.

I can't locate a 4349 list..




Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\orig_vs_rev10.add.dat"

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\orig_vs_rev10.del.dat"

On 2 Oct 2007, at 17:43, wrote:

> Harry, Philip,
> Well the arch skeptic McIntyre has found the page Mike put
> up and it wasn't enough! I expected that, but not his use of
> nice language in this email!
> Anyway, I've said I would try and do something in when
> back from Australia - not next week (as that is busy as well),
> but the week after that.
> In the meantime, can you Harry send me a list of the 4349
> stations and the 55? I've emailed Philip in case Harry
> doesn't have the 4349 list. I know Harry has the 55.
> When I get back, I can then check the 4349 and 4138 and
> find what additional stations were extracted in the 2006
> paper. I know that I took out about 35 US sites as these
> had crept back despite being deemed 'urban' in work in
> the 1980s.
> I think the rest relate to changes in Australia, Canada
> and NZ wrt station number changing and newer series.
> No rush on this.
> It is warm and sunny in Sydney. Woke at 2am, but did get 12hrs
> sleep, now have to co-ordinate this with the night-time here!
> Cheers
> Phil
> ---------------------------- Original Message
> ----------------------------
> Subject: CRU Station Lists
> From: "Steve McIntyre" <>
> Date: Tue, October 2, 2007 5:05 pm
> To: "'Phil Jones'" <>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> Dear Phil, thank you for placing the list of CRU stations online. In
> the webpage, I think that you will find that this is a good idea and
> will go some way to removing a pointless cause of criticism.
> You refer to "a look-up Table which associates some current WMO
> station
> numbers with the earlier values we are using." This is necessary for
> the use of the list and I would appreciate it if you would either send
> me a copy of it or place this online. The online listing shows 4138
> stations (as you observe), while Brohan et al listed 4349 stations
> (as
> you also observe.) Brohan et al 2006 refers to 55 stations being
> remove
> for duplication while the current list shows a larger number. I would
> appreciate a list of the 4349 stations referred to in Brohan as
> well as
> the 55 stations then removed.
> The webpage also states: "Additional updates in near-real time (either
> monthly or annually) come directly from Australia, Canada, New
> Zealand,
> Austria, the Nordic countries and a few others." It would be
> helpful if
> the "few others" were specifically listed or alternately could you
> email
> me the names of these few others.
> Concurrent with the information on stations, I think that you should
> provide as complete a documentation as possible for your calculations,
> including the provision of source code, as otherwiie you will
> undoubtedly continue to have piecemeal inquiries resulting from the
> presently incomplete documentation.
> Regards, Steve McIntyre
> <untitled-2>

Ian "Harry" Harris
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom


No comments:

Post a Comment