Read scanned pages of the "Comment by Wood 1988 and the Wigley and Jones reply
Wood, F.B. 1988, "Comment:  On the need for Validation of the Jones et al. Temperature Trends with respect to Urban Warming", Climatic Change 12,  297-312.

Dr's Jones and Wigley replied in the same issue;
Wigley, T.M.L. and  Jones, P.D. 1988; "Do large-area-average temperature series have an urban warming bias ?", Climatic Change 12, 314-318.
 Wigley and Jones
Page 297
Page 313
Page 298
Page 314
Page 299
Page 315
Page 300
Page 316
Page 301
Page 317
Page 302
Page 318
Page 303
Page 319
Page 304

Page 305
Below this Table are listed points 1 to 9 with page #'s from Wigley and Jones that they list as "Errors in Wood's Analysis."
Page 306
I juxtapose these points with the page location in Wood where you can read what he actually said
Page 307
Then in the right hand column I comment.  I will steadily build a separate page for each of the W & J 9 points.
Page 308
Working through the 9 points where W & J say there are "Errors in Wood's Analysis",  I can not pin point any of the nine points
Page 309
where that is a justifiable statement.   I think Wood was very fair, faced with  the diehard agenda of Jones et al to include as many
Page 310
urban affected records into global trends as they could.
Page 311

Page 312

Will build some of these commentaries more.         Back to 20 year Review
 Wigley and Jones points 1 to 9
What Wood  actually had to say
Comments by WS Hughes
1, p313, claim that Wood said of Jones et al 1986 , "urban warming was clearly identified at only 38 stations out of 2666".  W & J puff on that, "This is a serious distortion of the facts."
p298 Wood did not use "only".  Reading on Wood seems to cover the issue fairly.  On page 316 Wood draws attention to the fact that in the SH only 3 stations were excluded for urban bias,  Sao Paulo, Madang and Whenuapai. The UHI is the single most pervasive non-climatic factor in global temperature data. We know so much about the UHI that the most reasonable approach is to build a series of wide area trends using various population categories. Then the UHI influence will be obvious to see.  I can not see where Wood distorts any of W & J's facts.
2, p313   W & J make the point that they use many more stations for intercomparisons then they record in their TR022 and TR027 documentation.
Table II p 301 and p298 and 300.
W & J  should record all the stations they use in intercomparisons. They can not expect Wood or any of us to be mindreaders.  I notice they still do not document this information.
3, p314   W & J struggling  to muddy Wood's obvious point that "urban warming is correlated with population growth"  Table III p 303 and discussion 302. W & J  omit to mention that temperature records derive from stations established to provide weather data. The network  was never designed to provide the precision to determine "climate" trends to tenths of a degree. Also never designed to track minute differences between urban and more rural settings. 
4, p314   W & J straining to make a lot of this point that you can not jump to  the conclusion that because a station bears a city name, that it is central in the city.  Sorry, but I have not found  where Wood does this. I would say, sites peripheral to a city are usually EXACTLY where the rate of urban growth is highest.
I also note W & J give no example of what  Wood is supposed to have done here.  
5, p314   W & J Extension of point 4. W & J say that San Juan International Airport "did not survive our various tests" and that  "..we interpreted the apparent trend as a step change of 0.8 degC  around 1970 and corrected the record accordingly." Wood discusses San Juan Int AP mid page 302. He refers to the Duchon 1986 study of the UHI at San Juan Int Airport which clearly proves the trend in San Juan is urban warming and not a step change as Jones et al say. For downloadable pdf  of Duchon 1986
Click on, Print Version for Duchon, Claude E.
There are listings for San Juan in TR022  Appendix A and B which says it was "corrected" and used in the gridding process.  San Juan was compared to Santo Domingo ~400 kms west and the years 1899 to 1969 were corrected  for what Jones et al saw as an upward step change at 1970. Looks like a classic example of a proven Jones et al error.  This Fig  4 from Duchon 1986 illustrates EXACTLY what Jones et al so often did wrong.  They included the  UHI affected trend from San Juan with its conveniently more complete data and under-represented the other  less perfect data, which probably holds trends that more accurately reflect regional temperature trends.  Jones included 4 Puerto Rico stations that the GHCN classes as "Rural", Arecibo, Lajas, and Corozal & Isabela Substations, which have data from 1951-1970. If these are averaged and differenced with San Juan, the figures show that San Juan warms at 0.56 degress over  the 4 rurals for  1951-1970.  One wonders how many bells would have had to ring for Jones et al to wake up to their mistakes.
See blog posts  San Juan Puerto Rico, EXACTLY how UHI warming can get into global gridded T trends.
and,  True temperature trends for Puerto Rico hidden in fragmented data
and universal UHI illustrations, GISS/NASA/NOAA graphics illustrate significant UHI truths
6, p314   W & J point actually not numbered (good editing and reviewing there) but it has to be the para commencing "Wood suggests that the detection threshold used by Jones et al, in the last analysis stage may have been too high.........." Wood discusses that Jones et al 1986 used an urban warming threshold that was too high, lower third of  page 302 The W & J reply agrees that Wood got correct his number of 0.89 degrees for the difference for the 38 NH stations and their rural pairs, rejected for urban warming.  A great result for Wood. How this makes Wood "in error" is utterly beyond me.  Then W & J go on to say that they will keep their threshold secret !!!
Not in the real world Tom and Phil.
7, p314 & 315  W & J straining to make Wood seem misleading.  Yet they have to admit to using ten urban stations where Kukla et al have proved urban warming.  Wood gives examples of Jones et al urban rural comparisons in Table II page 301 and discusses the  Kukla et al  1986 paper with its 34 urban rural pairs on bottom page 303. Tom and Phil., 10 cities is 10 too many.  In fact 20% of the 297 USA cities used without correction, are greater than 50,000 in population.  Using the out of date GHCN pop codes.  Look at the cities used in the Southern Hemisphere, with populations. (much more to come on this point)
8, p315  W & J saying that just because intercomparisons are not listed does not mean they have not been carried out..  Wood discusses the sometimes lack of stations to compare on  page 304 I say, "document all your intercomparisons W & J", stop hiding data.  Your intercomparisons for Australian cities, see point 9 below, show  they can be over distances from hundreds of kms up to thousands of kms.   Bizarre !!
9, p315, W & J make the astonishing claim that, "...the distance criticism is a red herring."
Wood notes top of 304  that some of   Jones et al comparisons are between station hundreds of  miles apart. 
I have noticed this in the Jones et al Australian data too and am frankly staggered that W & J would  defend such an indefensible position.  Increase distance between intercomparisons in any particular region and you decrease the validity of any correlation.  Science 101.