date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 08:47:17 -0400 (EDT) from: Konstantin Vinnikov subject: Re: St. Petersburg daily data to: Phil Jones Dear Phil, I am ashamed. I am another reviewer. I received your paper for review a few weeks ago. I looked it through and found that it was OKay. I will read it and send a review with a copy to you during next few days. I think that Pasha has better contacts with Russians, now. I hope that he will provide you with contact names. I did not contact with Russians during last few years. It was many years ago, when I used my graduate student to study urbanization effect on temperature records in the largests Russian cities. I remember that we found many rural stations around St. Petersburg. We estimated that difference between the main St. Petersburg station and rural stations around (really all they are on East from SP) was about 0.8-1C. It was ~ 0.2C per/1 million people. I don't remember what was seasonality of this difference if any. The details have never been published. This estimate has been published in my book "Climate Sensitivity, 1986, p.60-61,in Russian). This book has been sent to you. But I don't know if you received it. That student published very short student's paper which does not contain much more. I think that Pasha was other reviewer of your manuscript. Not so many people around are able to list the names of Russian stations around St. Petersburg. Sorry again. I will be back in a few days. Yours, Kostya ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dr. Konstantin Ya. Vinnikov Office: (301) 405-5382 Department of Meteorology Home: (301) 779-2970 University of Maryland Fax: (301) 314-9482 College Park, MD 20742 E-mail: kostya@atmos.umd.edu On Wed, 25 Oct 2000, Phil Jones wrote: > > Dear Pasha and Kostya, > As one of you (or both) are aware there was an EU project called > IMPROVE which has digitised and corrected/adjusted long daily series > for 8 European locations. One of these sites is St. Petersburg. I've > just received the review of the paper from Dario Camuffo, who co-ordinated > the > project and is the editor of the special issue of Climatic Change where the > results of the project will appear. I suggest you both as possible > reviewers. > The project finished almost a year ago and I do not have any resources > to do much more with the series. So, if either of you can help me I would > most appreciate it. Can one of you help me to get the monthly average > temperature data for sites in the vicinity of St. Petersburg ? The sites > mentioned in the review that one of you has comprehensively produced > mentions Gogland, Kingisepp, Vyborg, Pavlovsk, Novaya Ladoga and > Schlisselberg. I am happy to revise the paper using a lot of the material > you give in the review, but to address the urbanization question more > thoroughly I need some better data than I have. If you can just give a > contact name at St. Petersburg or Obninsk that would be useful. The > project doesn't have any money to pay for any data, so if a few strings > can be pulled I would be most grateful. > The paper on St. Petersburg for this special issue is much shorter than > the other west European ones. This is partly that it was a bit of an > afterthought and was written for completeness. Help is important as > it turns out from a summary paper by Zhongwei Yan et al (including me and > all the others in the project) and one by Anders Moberg et al (which > should appear in JGR very soon if it isn't out already) that from a > series of analyses of the daily data (I realise these are all papers you've > not seen yet) that St. Petersburg turns out to be the most homogeneous of all > the series over the longest time. All the other have problems before > about 1860/1870 because of changes in observation times and the number > of observations per day. For whatever reason St. Petersburg seems immune > to these problems, possible because there were always 3-4 obs per day. > It is still likely that there are long-term homogeneity problems and > urban efects, but the basic structure of the daily data, particularly > the day-to-day differences and the amount of variance on different > timescales from daily to weekly to monthly, passes all the tests which > all the other series fail. If you get a chance to see this in the > Moberg et al paper in JGR please look. There is a 3rd paper by > Zhongwei Yan et al in submission to JGR that shows similar results. > > There is no rush for all this as another review is still awaited for > this paper. If either of you can help I would be happy to add one or > both of you onto the paper as authors. Perhaps we can discuss this more > by email and/or at the AMS meeting in Albuquerque if either of you are > going. I'm booked to go to this in Jan and will be presenting some > of the results of these papers in a session organised by Dave Easterling. > > Thanks for your time wading through this long email ! > > 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 p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >