Section 4.1 responses

4. It is alleged that there has been an improper bias in selecting and adjusting data so as to favour the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis and details of sites and the data adjustments have not been made adequately available It is alleged that instrumental data has been selected preferentially to include data from warmer, urban in contrast to rural sites; that the rationale for the choice of high/low latitude sites is poor; and that the processes by which data has been corrected, accepted and rejected are complex and unclear.

QUESTIONS TO ADDRESS

 1 What is the rationale for the choice of data stations worldwide?

7 Responses to “Section 4.1 responses”

  1. Jimchip Says:

    0995978954 24 Jul 2001 Cook to Osborn, Jones, Briffa:

    “Consider one last “thought experiment”. Suppose you came to Earth from another planet to study its climate. You put out 1,000 randomly distributed recording thermometers and measure daily temperatures for 1 Earth year. You then pick up the thermometers and return to your planet where you estimate the mean annual temperature of the Earth for that one year. How many degrees of freedom do you have? Presumably, 999. Now, suppose that you leave those same recording thermometers in place for 20 years and calculate 20 annual means. From these 20-year records, you also calculate an rbar of 0.10. How many degrees of freedom per year do you have now? 999 or 9.9? What has changed? Certainly not the observation network. Does this mean that we can just as accurately measure the Earth’s mean annual temperature with only 10 randomly placed thermometers if they provide temperature records with an rbar of 0.00 over a 20 year period? I wouldn’t bet on it, but your theory implies it to be so. Surely, one would have more confidence (i.e. smaller confidence intervals) in mean annual tempertures estimated from a 1000-station network.”

    1121950297 Jul 21, 2005 (Briffa to Villalba Re: the regional section and MWP Figure):

    “this all seems fine with me – the question of the temperature observations is a moot one – but some included seems a good idea – 1 South American and 1 New Zealand is fine – length not as important as proximity to the records shown (but need to see what they l;look like). will wait on other numbers – Henry is best qualified to cite most appropriate SH borehole data and could supply a line of text…At 13:52 20/07/2005, Ricardo Villalba wrote:

    Hi Keith, Ed, Peck, Eystein
    Regarding Peck’s suggestions,
    1) should we include instrumental data? If not, it could lessen the impact.
    Rio de Janeiro, starting in 1851, is the longest, homogeneous temperature record from the Southern Hemisphere. In New Zealand and Australia, temperature records start at the same time. We do not have any long record for the 18th century, even the first half of the 19th century.”

  2. jimchip Says:

    Also posted under 4.2 See also https://crutapeletters.wordpress.com/second-4-responses/section-4-5-responses/#comment-49 UHI

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/16/jones-may-submit-a-correction-to-his-1990-paper-keenan-responds/

    Nature, Phil interview:
    http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100215/full/news.2010.71.html and discussed at CA:
    http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/12/phil-jones-interview/

    Central to the Russell investigation is the issue of whether he or his CRU colleagues ever published data that they knew were potentially flawed, in order to bolster the evidence for man-made global warming. The claim specifically relates to one of Jones’s research papers1 on whether the urban heat island effect — in which cities tend to be warmer than the surrounding countryside — could be responsible for the apparent rise in temperature readings from thermometers in the late twentieth century. Jones’s study concluded that this local effect was negligible, and that the dominant effect was global climate change.

  3. jimchip Says:

    Beginning of Keenan’s response, WUWT, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/16/jones-may-submit-a-correction-to-his-1990-paper-keenan-responds/

    Doug Keenan writes in a comment to the nature article:

    This news report discusses my work on the Chinese weather-station data, but provides no references for that work. The main reference is this: Keenan, D. J. Energy & Environment, 18, 985-995 (2007). It is freely available on the web.

    The news report also misrepresents my allegations.

    My principal allegation is that some of the data on station histories never existed. Specifically, Jones et al. (1990) claim to have sourced their data from a report that was published by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Yet for 49 of the 84 meteorological stations that Jones et al. relied upon, the DOE/CAS Report states “station histories are not currently available” and “details regarding

  4. jimchip Says:

    1182342470.txt More wrt to Keenan:

    From: Thomas C Peterson
    To: Phil Jones

    Subject: Re: Fwd: Jones et al 1990
    Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 08:27:50 -0400

    Fascinating. Thanks for keeping me in the loop, Phil. I won’t pass it on but I will keep
    it in the back of my mind when/if Russ asks about appropriate responses to CA requests.
    Russ’ view is that you can never satisfy them so why bother to try?
    It seems to me that what they are saying is the equivalent of accusing a doctor of
    malpractice for not seeing a broken bone in a Chinese x-ray taken in 1985 when the break is
    clearly visible in a state of the art 2005 Canadian MRI scan examined while wearing their
    special problem finding glasses.
    They also don’t seem to understand the collaborative nature of the work, equivalent to
    accusing you of faulty reading of metadata at the USHCN station in Reno because you quoted
    a general USHCN statement that wasn’t fully applicable to Reno.
    Good luck.
    Tom

    Phil Jones said the following on 6/20/2007 3:59 AM:

    Tom P.
    Just for interest. Don’t pass on.
    Might be a precedent for your paper to J. Climate when
    it comes out.
    There are a few interesting comments on the CA web site.
    One says it is up to me to prove the paper from 1990 was correct,
    not for Keenan to prove we’re wrong. Interesting logic.
    Cheers
    Phil
    Wei-Chyung, Tom,
    I won’t be replying to either of the emails below, nor to any
    of the accusations on the Climate Audit website…

  5. jimchip Says:

    In hindsight: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/16/jones-may-submit-a-correction-to-his-1990-paper-keenan-responds/

    1182346299.txt More specifically the Chinese stations:

    From: “Kevin Trenberth”
    To: “Phil Jones”

    Subject: Re: Fwd: Jones et al 1990
    Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 09:31:39 -0600 (MDT)
    Reply-to: trenbert@ucar.edu

    > Kevin,
    > My problem is that I don’t know the best course of action.
    > Just sitting tight at the moment taking soundings.
    > I’d be far happier if they would write some papers and act
    > in the normal way. I’d know how to respond to that. In
    > a way this all seems a different form of attack from that on Ben and
    > Mike in previous IPCCs.
    > I know I’m on the right side and honest, but I seem to be
    > telling myself this more often recently! I also know that 99.9%
    > of my fellow climatologists know the attacks are groundless.

    >> > I’m not worried and stand by the original paper and also
    >> > Wei-Chyung. I do plan to do some more work on urban-related
    >> > issues. I also think there is some urban influence in more recent
    >> > Chinese series from the 1980s onwards. I’ve seen some Chinese
    >> > papers on this. They are not that well written though.
    >> >
    >> > The CA web site has also had a go at David Parker’s paper in
    >> > J. Climate (2006). David sent them the site locations and where
    >> > the data came from at NCDC. There are also threads on CA about
    >> > US HCN (Tom Karl and Peterson aware of these) and also about
    >> > IPCC and our responses to the various drafts…

  6. Jimchip Says:

    1063657189.txt In the background…Phil 1990, China, Cheung

    The link to AMS for the pdf is now defunct.

    From: Phil Jones
    To: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk,k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,simon.tett@metoffice.com, peter.thorne@metoffice.com,chris.folland@metoffice.com, david.parker@metoffice.com
    Subject: Fwd: rural/urban paper
    Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 16:19:49 +0100

    Dear All,
    Link below is to a paper just out in the US. Could be some press
    coverage – as it says
    there is no difference between urban and rural stations for temperature
    over the US !
    Interesting to see if the skeptics pick up on this. They are probably
    still going through the
    Vinnikov/Grody paper in Science showing MSU2 warming more than the
    surface, so
    they have a lot to look at.
    I reviewed Peterson’s one with Chris and couldn’t see anything wrong
    with the main message.

    Cheers
    Phil

    >Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 10:23:46 -0400
    >From: “Thomas C Peterson”
    >Organization: NOAA/NESDIS/NCDC
    >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
    >X-Accept-Language: en
    >To: Phil Jones
    >Subject: rural/urban paper
    >
    >Hi, Phil.
    >
    >I was going to send you a copy of my rural/urban paper, but I didn’t get
    >a .pdf before it was published. As it is 6 megs, I’ll just give you the
    >link instead:
    >
    >http://ams.allenpress.com/pdfserv/i1520-0442-016-18-2941.pdf
    >
    >Regards,
    >
    > Tom

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: