The Comment on our paper
Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229.
Parker, D. E., P. Jones, T. C. Peterson, and J. Kennedy, 2009: Comment on Unresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global land surface temperature trends. by Roger A. Pielke Sr. et al.,J. Geophys. Res., 114, D05104, doi:10.1029/2008JD010450.
along with our Reply,
Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2009: Reply to comment by David E. Parker, Phil Jones, Thomas C. Peterson, and John Kennedy on “Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 114, D05105,
These exchange has already been commented on in Climate Science (see), which included the very positive reviews of our Reply.
I just want to emphasize three major issues with this exchange:
1. The authors of the Comment [D. Parker, P. Jones, T. Peterson and J. Kennedy] should be recognized for their willingness to engage in constructive scientific debate. We need more such exchanges of viewpoints.
2. The Referees’ comments supported the conclusions that we reached in our Reply. Moreover, Parker et al were silent on the other issues that we raised in our 2007 JGR paper. They wrote
“We note Pielke et al.‘s  many concerns with the historical global mean land surface air temperature record, which range from the inclusion of nocturnal temperature observations to the importance of factoring in humidity. We will, however, limit our comments to two of Pielke et al.‘s  eight aspects where our additional analyses have shed considerable light.”
This reinforces our conclusion that there are very significant issues with the use of the surface temperature trends as a quantitative metric to diagnose global warming or cooling which they did not even attempt to refute in their Reply.
3. Both the Comment and the Reply support the following recommendation that is made in the Comment
“We nevertheless agree with Pielke et al.  in aspirations for an improved global network monitoring all Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) Essential Climate Variables including humidity as well as temperature; for universal adherence to the GCOS Climate Monitoring Principles (http://www.wmo.ch/pages/prog/gcos/index.php?name = monitoringprinciples) which include the availability of full metadata such as photographic documentation; and as well for the rescue and digitization of all historical data.”