of data switched from European fleets to almost exclusively US fleets (and
who tended to use engine inlet temperatures rather than canvas buckets).
This offset was large and dramatic and was identified more than ten years
ago from comparisons of simultaneous measurements of night-time marine air
temperatures (NMAT) which did not show such a shift. The experimentally
based adjustment to account for the canvas bucket cooling brought the sea
surface temperatures much more into line with the NMAT series (Folland and
Parker, 1995). (Note that this reduced the 20th Century trends in SST).

More recent work (for instance, at this workshop in 2005), has focussed on
refining the estimates and incorporating new sources of data. For
instance, the 1941 shift in the original corrections, was reduced and
pushed back to 1939 with the addition of substantial and dominant amounts
of US Merchant Marine data (which mostly used engine inlets temperatures).

The version of the data that is currently used in most temperature
reconstructions is based on the work of Rayner and colleagues (reported in
2006). In their discussion of remaining issues they state:

Using metadata in the ICOADS it is possible to compare the
contributions made by different countries to the marine component of the
global temperature curve. Different countries give different advice to
their observing fleets concerning how best to measure SST. Breaking the
data up into separate countries’ contributions shows that the assumption

The draft of the sweep i was on was about 5 foot so it was near surface temps.

I wonder how many reading the researchers thought were bucket were really intake reading.
Did these ships note on there reports that there reading were bucket or intake.
Or are these researcher just believe them to be bucket because they were told (By someone that was not there and did not know how the reading were taken) that they were all bucket.

How many Corregendums have been fueled by errors uncovered by CA?

From: Michael Mann
To: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 08:12:02 -0400
Reply-to: mann@xxxx

Hi Phil,

laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would
have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to
have been true.

I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: generwahl@xxxx

talk to you later,

mike

Phil Jones wrote:
>
>> Mike,
> Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
> Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
>
> Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t
> have his new email address.
>
> We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
>
> I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature
> paper!!
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
>
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 xxxxxx
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 xxxxxx
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> —————————————————————————-
>

–
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) xxx-xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) xxx-xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxx
University Park, PA 16802-5013

http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm

Of course there are other unrelated phrases of interest in the exchange.