Thursday, June 7, 2012

4938.txt

date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:13:55 +0000 (GMT)
from: David Lister <D.ListeratXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: Re: Fwd: FW: London UHI
to: Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>

<x-flowed>
Phil,

Colin has supplird the Wisley data and I can do some more analyses for the
proposed paper. I know that we had a brief word about what we should do a
few weeks ago. I thought that I had made a note but I cannot find
anything. From memory, I was going to include Wisley in the
annual/seasonal trend calculation/comparison exercise to complemeent
Colin'd graphics.

Just a couple of points/questions:

Rob has tended to concentrate more on the nocturnal UHI effect and we
looked at Tmean. Are we going to stick with the Tmean approach?

When we did the China paper, we did not include Kew in the annual Tmean
plots. Perhaps we felt that Kew was a little less reliable/homogeneous so
we left it out. The Heathrow smoothed curve rose above the one for Kew in
our original plot (which included Kew) ca. 1976. At first sight, Heathrow
was being affected by increasing urbanization. However, I suppose that
Kew may have a 'problem'. Colin has included Kew in his new plots (he has
not got Gatwick, which we used, but it does end several years ago and
perhaps has not much of a place in the current work).

Can we have a word about this - sometime soon?

Cheers

David

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Phil Jones wrote:

> Colin, David,
> It might be worth us writing a brief paper to Weather, extending the
> London
> analyses in the China paper. I think that most of the plots are done, so
> when you're back Colin, can you dig out those Rothamsted comparisons
> for max and min that you did some months back. What I might ask you
> to do David is some more of those histogram diagrams between
> station pairs?
> What I think Rob might be seeing is trends at Wisley, not at SJP.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>> X-Lboro-Archived: Archived
>> X-Lboro-Archived: Archived
>> From: R.L.WilbyatXYZxyzro.ac.uk
>> Subject: Fwd: FW: London UHI
>> To: <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, <geoff.jenkinsatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk>
>> X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro WebUser v5.2.6
>> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:28:17 +0100
>> X-Scan-Signature: 9da98698eb38c16036323967e6009275
>> X-Lboro-Filtered: weed.lut.ac.uk, Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:28:19 +0100
>> X-Spam-Score: undef - message too big (size: 684170, limit: 153600)
>> X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default)
>> X-Canit-Stats-ID: Bayes signature not available
>> X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.185
>>
>> Hi Phil
>>
>> Thanks for the paper - this will make a nice 'recommended reading' for one
>> of my first tutorial groups at Lufbra methinks.
>>
>> Taking a quick glance through, probably the TWO most important differences
>> between your analysis and mine is that I refer mainly to the nocturnal
>> (Tmin) UHI which is much more pronounced than daytime (Tmax) - see Tables
>> 1 and 2 in the attached PDF of the 2003 Weather paper. Second, I use
>> Wisley as the rural reference station.
>>
>> Looking at changing differences in *mean* daily temperatures between these
>> urban-rural sites will tend to weaken the UHI - especially when you see
>> that Tmax trends are roughly the same at both sites (Table 2). So my
>> results are not inconsistent with yours - we're just looking at different
>> things!
>>
>> Hope this make sense.
>>
>> Cheers, Rob
>>
>> --
>> Professor R.L.Wilby
>> Department of Geography
>> Loughborough University
>> Leics LE11 3TU, UK
>> Tel. 01509 223093
>> Mob. 07909 901059
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --- the forwarded message follows ---
>>
>>
>>
>> Return-Path: <r.wilbyatXYZxyzcaster.ac.uk>
>> X-Lboro-Archived: Archived
>> Received: from bill.lut.ac.uk ([158.125.1.193] verified)
>> by ping.lboro.ac.uk (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.6)
>> with ESMTP id 11703011 for gyrlw3@staff-mail.lut.ac.uk; Wed, 24 Sep 2008
>> 17:06:55 +0100
>> Received: from mutable.lancs.ac.uk ([148.88.17.19])
>> by bill.lut.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.66)
>> (envelope-from <r.wilby@lancaster.ac.uk>)
>> id 1KiWtC-0004Eh-Np
>> for r.l.wilby@lboro.ac.uk; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:06:55 +0100
>> Received: from exchange-fe3.lancs.ac.uk ([148.88.1.50]
>> helo=exchange-fe3.lancs.local)
>> by mutable.lancs.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.68)
>> (envelope-from <r.wilby@lancaster.ac.uk>)
>> id 1KiWtA-0005ww-Cg
>> for r.l.wilby@lboro.ac.uk; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:06:53 +0100
>> Received: from exchange-be4.lancs.local ([148.88.5.59]) by
>> exchange-fe3.lancs.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
>> Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:06:53 +0100
>> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
>> Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>> Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
>> boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C91E5F.8ECC2B68"
>> Subject: FW: London UHI
>> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:06:38 +0100
>> Message-ID:
>> <57F37666BA6C794882BAEFE59E1EFFD58B9ECA@exchange-be4.lancs.local>
>> X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
>> X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
>> Thread-Topic: London UHI
>> Thread-Index: AckeXE21fXjypmkOQ02IfQxXTO3brQAAziHy
>> References:
>> <E51EDFEBF10BE44BB4BDAF5FC2F024B95E4EE4atXYZxyzMAIL02.desktop.frd.metoffice.com>
>> <EXCHANGE-FE4uhBzkqJ0003133b@exchange-fe4.lancs.local>
>> From: "Wilby, Robert" <r.wilbyatXYZxyzcaster.ac.uk>
>> To: <R.L.WilbyatXYZxyzro.ac.uk>
>> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Sep 2008 16:06:53.0066 (UTC)
>> FILETIME=[8F3D5EA0:01C91E5F]
>> X-Scan-Signature: a954b39f57c18a27ddaa8ab8a548c2ee
>> X-Lboro-Filtered: bill.lut.ac.uk, Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:06:55 +0100
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
>> Sent: Wed 24/09/2008 16:43
>> To: Jenkins, Geoff
>> Cc: Wilby, Robert
>> Subject: Re: London UHI
>>
>>
>>
>> Rob,
>> Can you send what you sent Geoff - see his email?
>>
>> We're probably defining UHI differently, so here is the paper that I
>> sent Geoff.
>> London's UHI by the definition I'm using isn't getting any worse.
>> I'm using mean temperature - see Figure 1 in the paper.
>>
>> What this means to me is that I could use the LWC in the global
>> temperature
>> calculations (i.e. using monthly anomalies from 1961-90). These would
>> be no different from Rothamsted or LHR/LGW.
>>
>> I have similar plots for max and min comparing LWC/LHR with Rothamsted
>> and with Kew
>> back to 1900.
>>
>> Histograms like Figure 2 show no difference between the decades since
>> 1974.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Phil
>>
>>
>> At 15:37 24/09/2008, Jenkins, Geoff wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Phil
>> Thanks for the comments on the Briefing report. You say "There is
>> no evidence with London of any change in the amount of the UHI over the
>> last 40 years. The UHI is clear, but it's not getting any worse" and sent
>> a paper to show this. By coincidence I also got recently a paper from Rob
>> which says "London's UHI has indeed become more intense since the 1960s
>> esp during spring and summer". Its not something I need to sort out for
>> UKCIP08, but I thought you both might like to be aware of each others
>> findings. I didn't keep a copy of Rob's PDF after I printed it off but I
>> am sure you can swap papers. I don't need to be copied in to any
>> discussion.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Geoff
>>
>> 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.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk
>> NR4 7TJ
>> UK
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>
> 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.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
</x-flowed>

No comments:

Post a Comment