Section 4.2 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

 2. How has this choice been tested as appropriate in generating a global or hemispheric mean temperature (both instrumental and proxy data)?

6 Responses to “Section 4.2 Responses”

  1. Jimchip Says:

    1141930111 09 Mar 2006 Jones to Eystein:

    I can say for certain (100% – not any probable word that IPCC
    would use) is that the surface temperature data are correct.

  2. jimchip Says:

    http://climateaudit.org/2007/05/31/tom-karls-station-adjustments/
    1182255717.txt

    CA: “(e.g. you would probably not have a garbage incinerator discharging on a weather station adjacent to an airport runway.) However, it also becomes increasingly clear that Jones, Hansen (and Karl) appear to have exercised no due diligence whatever in ensuring that the USHCN sites met the assumptions of the Karl Adjustment.”

    pdf of TK paper
    http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0450/26/12/pdf/i1520-0450-26-12-1744.pdf

    From: “Thomas.R.Karl”
    To: Phil Jones
    Subject: Re: FW: retraction request
    Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:21:57 -0400
    Cc: Wei-Chyung Wang

    Thanks Phil,
    We R now responding to a former TV weather forecaster who has got press, He has a web site
    of 40 of the USHCN stations
    showing less than ideal exposure. He claims he can show urban biases and exposure biases.
    We are writing a response for our Public Affairs. Not sure how it will play out.
    Regards, TOm

  3. jimchip Says:

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

    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.

  4. jimchip Says:

    0956161482.txt Also applies to 1.2 and 4.2

    >> At 04:34 PM 4/18/00 -0400, Ed Cook wrote:
    >> >Dear Juerg,
    >> >
    >> >I have just completed reading your most recent GRL paper (Schmutz et al.,
    >> >2000) on NAO reconstructions in which you show that proxy-based NAO
    >> >reconstructions are probably wanting. It is not possible to strongly defend
    >> >my reconstruction at this time (indeed I was extremely cautious in my
    >> >description of it with regards to over-fitting problems, etc.). However, I
    >> >do think that there are some issues that have not been fully explored,
    >> >which could help explain some of the non-stationarity in the relationships
    >> >found between your index and mine (at least) based on proxy data alone.
    >> >First, my NAO reconstruction is based on 6 North American and 4 European
    >> >tree-ring chronologies. Because the putuative NAO information in these
    >> >records spans the North Atlantic and nicely brackets the NAO centers of
    >> >action as we know them now, they potentially contain past information that
    >> >is missing from a purely European-based estimate of NAO. This could occur
    >> >if the NAO did not affect climate on both sides of the North Atlantic in
    >> >the same roughly symmetric way back in time as it does now. If this were
    >> >the case (and we have no way of knowing that now as far as I know), then it
    >> >is conceivable that your L index is excessively biased towards Europe, as
    >> >would be the extended Jones SLP index. If so, any comparisons between your
    >> >L index and my proxy index with the Jones index would be hopelessly biased
    >> >in your favor. This is not to say that my reconstruction is as good as
    >> >yours, but it might not be as bad as your results indicate either.
    >> >
    >> >Indeed, I did make some effort to “verify” my reconstruction against early
    >> >instrumental records, with somewhat contradictory and potentially
    >> >interesting results. Over the 1841-1873 period, my record correlates
    >> >significantly with Stykkisholmer SLP (-0.456) and Oslo temperatures
    >> >(0.323), but not Bermuda SLP (0.156) and Central England temperatures
    >> >(0.211). The “appearance” of significant verification with only the more
    >> >northerly instrumental records may be telling us something about
    >> >differences in circulation and SSTs over the North Atlantic from what is
    >> >now the case. This could affect the way in which the NAO affects climate
    >> >jointly over North America and Europe. Of course, when I added some earlier
    >> >observations (same stations) to the verification tests (Table 4 of my
    >> >paper), the results weakened considerably. So, maybe this means that my NAO
    >> >reconstruction is indeed poor. However, I must admit to having doubts about
    >> >the quality of the early instrumental records despite the great efforts
    >> >made to homogenize and correct them. This is especially the case with
    >> >regards to low-frequency variability, but can also extend to individual
    >> >values as well. I talked with Phil Jones about one suspect datum in the
    >> >early portion of his extended NAO record that largely destroys any
    >> >correlation with proxy-based NAO estimates (the sign of the instrumental
    >> >index appears to be wrong to me). Yet, Phil is convinced that that datum is
    >> >good and he may very well be right. Either way, more robust methods of
    >> >association between series may be jusitified to guard anomalous values.
    >> >
    >> >Last year I asked you to please send my your reconstruction of the NAO (L).
    >> >I never received it and ask you again to please send it.
    >> >

    From: “Michael E. Mann”
    To: Christoph Schmutz
    Subject: Re: Your recent GRL paper (fwd)
    Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 12:24:42 -0400

  5. jimchip Says:

    1056477710.txt see 5. also re: EOS S&B

    At 02:37 PM 6/24/2003 +0100, Tim Osborn wrote:

    Hi Tom,
    In Phil’s absence I was just now looked at his PC because I needed some files/emails for
    a separate matter, and I noticed that you had emailed Phil/Ray/Mike concurring with
    Ray’s concerns. Until I saw that, I hadn’t realised that anyone else had commented on
    Yang et al.
    Keith and I discussed exactly this issue this morning, and though Keith also had
    concerns about the record (I haven’t read their paper, so can’t comment) we decided to
    leave things as they were because: (i) Mike suggested adding correlations to the figure
    at the proof stage rather than now; (ii) I wasn’t sure how to word a caveat about Yang
    et al. without making it seem odd that we were including a doubtful record and odd that
    we hadn’t added caveats about some of the other records.

  6. jimchip Says:

    1056477985.txt

    From: “Michael E. Mann”
    To: Keith Briffa , Phil Jones

    , “Raymond S. Bradley”
    Subject: Re: ice cores/China series (FYI)
    Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:06:25 -0400
    Cc: mann@virginia.edu

    Thanks Keith,
    I just read your email after reading the others. We actually eliminate records with
    negative correlations (this is mentioned breifly in the GRL article,), and we investigated
    a variety of weighting schemes to assure the basic robustness of the composite–but I
    certainly endorse your broader point here. Many of these records have some significant
    uncertainties or possible sources of bias, and this isn’t the place to get into that. The
    uncertainties get at this, at some level, and other places (e.g. the Reviews of Geophysics
    paper Phil and I are drafting) will provide an opportunity to discuss these kinds of issues
    in more detail–we will certainly be seeking advice (either officially or unofficially)
    from each of you once we have finalized the draft of that…
    Now back to my honeymoon…
    mike
    At 02:38 PM 6/24/2003 +0100, Keith Briffa wrote:

    To keep you informed , here is a reply to Tom Wigley re his request to “deal with Ray’s
    Comments” re the China series in EOS piece
    Tom
    Tim has just told me of your message expressing concern about the China series , and
    your statement of the necessity to “deal with Ray’s comment” and add in the “small
    adjustment to the Figure Caption”. .
    We (I and Tim) decided to get this off as soon as possible to Ellen (AGU) , as we had
    been asked to do (and as requested by Ellen). Hence it went off earlier today (and
    before your message arrived). Mike was aware of Ray’s comment and was happy to leave any
    amendment to the text “until the proof stage” .
    In my opinion it is not practical (or desirable) to try to “qualify ” any one record in
    this limited format. It was a majority decision to leave the Mann and Jones 2000-year
    series in the Figure 1 (as it was to remove the Briffa and Osborn tree-ring based one) ,
    and the details of the logic used to derive the Mann and Jones series is to be found in
    the (cited) text of their paper. Signing on to this letter , in my mind. implies
    agreement with the text and not individual endorsement of all curves by each author. I
    too have expressed my concern to Phil (and Ray) over the logic that you leave all series
    you want in but just weight them according to some (sometimes low) correlation (in this
    case based on decadal values). I also believe some of the series that make up the
    Chinese record are dubious or obscure , but the same is true of other records Mann and
    Jones have used (e.g. how do you handle a series in New Zealand that has a -0.25
    correlation?) . Further serious problems are still (see my and Tim’s Science comment on
    the Mann 1999 paper) lurking with the correction applied to the Western US tree-ring PC
    amplitude series used (and shown in Figure 2). There are problems (and limitations )
    with ALL series used. At this stage , singling out individual records for added (and
    unavoidably cursory added description) is not practical. We were told to cut the text
    and References significantly – and further cuts are implied by Ellen’s messages to us.
    If you wish to open this up to general discussion , it may be best to wait ’til the
    proof stage and then we can all consider the balance of emphasis – but we had also
    better guard against too “selective” a choice of data to present? If you want to get a
    somewhat wider discussion of this point going in the meantime , feel free to forward
    this to whoever you wish along with your disagreement , while we wait on the response
    from AGU.
    Best wishes
    Keith

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: