Jones 1990 often cited, never checked?

[rockoon]

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1741#more-1741


Did Jones et al 1990 “fabricate” its quality control claims? He cites the following claims from Jones et al 1990 and Wang et al:

The stations were selected on the basis of station history: we chose those with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times. [Jones et al.]

They were chosen based on station histories: selected stations have relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times…. [Wang et al.]

Keenan observed that those statements are vital for the papers. For many years, no one knew what stations were used in Jones et al 1990. Only after recent FOI actions in the UK publicized here at CA did a list of the stations used in Jones et al 1990 become available in March 2007, after years of obstruction. Since then, Keenan has corresponded recently with both Jones and Wang, seeking a valid explanation of the above claims. His conclusion:

The essential point here is that the quoted statements from Jones et al. and Wang et al. cannot be true and could not be in error by accident. The statements are fabricated.



This raises questions about the validity of not only the conclusions of Jones 1990, but a lot of climate research since then which cites the paper.

Additionally, this raises questions about the peer review process. Jones 1990 was peer reviewed and published by Nature.

Jones 1990 is important to almost all areas of climate science that uses ground-based temperature records, which are systematically modified to compensate for the urban heat island effect based on the very results of this questionable Jones study.



I feel that the numerous cases of information obstruction in the field of climate science is very alarming. Climate scientists are held to a lower standard than scientists in other fields.

How can the peer review process even begin to work when vital information isnt released until 17 years later, and then only released unwillingly through forcible legal action?

[mhaze]

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1741#more-1741

How can the peer review process even begin to work when vital information isnt released until 17 years later, and then only released unwillingly through forcible legal action?

How dare you? You want to talk about facts? I'm shocked, shocked! You are questioning real scientists? Who are you to do such a thing? And to even dream of legal action to get scientists to release their data? Their data is theirs to rightfully withhold to support their conclusions. Isn't that obvious?

[rockoon]

The really scary part is that Jones 1990 was done as a response to criticism of the results of Jones 1986.

So somewhere along the way someone in the Jones et al team felt it necessary to lie in Jones 1990 in order to defend Jones 1986.

I wonder how many papers cite Jones 1986 :(

[Gord_in_Toronto]

So the claim is along the lines of: Mendel fudged his breeding experiments so the Laws of Inheritance do not exist?

:boggled:

[rockoon]

So the claim is along the lines of: Mendel fudged his breeding experiments so the Laws of Inheritance do not exist?

:boggled:

Where do you get that claim?

Besides which, if a scientist (or monk!) fudges his experiments, then he is less likely to draw correct conclusions.

The fact is that Jones 1990 and Jones 1986 go unsubstantiated in the face of evidence which does NOT support Jones et al conclusions.

Jones 1990 declares the UHI effect to be minimal when concerns over the magnitude of UHI and the certainty of Jones 1986 were brought up by Wood 1988.

Instead of Jones et al seperating their data into two groups in Jones 1990 (those likely tainted by UHI, and those likely not) they simply claimed that they performed this step when it was actualy impossible to do so. This step was the entire point of Jones 1990 (to measure the difference!) and they apparently lied about the whole damn thing.

..and the peer review process couldnt even check their facts because Jones et al hid their methodology from the rest of the world.

We can throw the conclusions of Jones 1990 into the trash and we are back to the state of things in 1988: Serious concerns over the reliability of the surface temperature record in the face of the known to exist UHI but still not properly measured contamination.

Many studies done after Jones 1990 relied on their conclusions. Those conclusions must now also be revisited. This isnt just a disservice to the public at large, it is a disservice to the field of climate science.

Try to look on the bright side. Maybe global warming isnt as bad as we thought and maybe the peer review process in climate science will finally get its act together.

Both of which are goods things, right?

[my_wan]

Rockoon has a very valid point. The issues we face over global warming is likely very real issues, alarmist notwithstanding. The degree to which my estimation of "very real" hinges very much on the science. When the science itself is so lopsided for political, budgetary, and career purposes I must add a healthy dose of skepticism and add to the level of evidence required for action. When someone like Jones et al pulls such a crass stunt that essentially wastes years worth of effort and data we should all be pissed. If you are really bent on curtailing human induced global warming why would you not be pissed at Jones et al dishonesty setting your evidence back years?

Almost as bad for the science is the tactics used against dissenters.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
This guy is very likely wrong about his science but the tactics used against him and others are wrong for the science.

Until we are prepared to view both sides on equal footing instead of stupid statements like;
So the claim is along the lines of: Mendel fudged his breeding experiments so the Laws of Inheritance do not exist?
:boggled:
we will never really know the truth even if the earth burns to a crisp. Come on this was an intentional deceit. My skepticism was running pretty thin and now I must reevaluate the whole situation.

[mhaze]

The really scary part is that Jones 1990 was done as a response to criticism of the results of Jones 1986.

So somewhere along the way someone in the Jones et al team felt it necessary to lie in Jones 1990 in order to defend Jones 1986.

I wonder how many papers cite Jones 1986 :(

I posted this question but it did not make it so here goes again.

Is this certain that Jones 1990, the data set was never audited and verified, the results replicated by another scientist? Has this been verified by a literature search or by any other satisfactory method of proof?

Just a simple yes or no. No spinning or changing the subject.

[rockoon]

I posted this question but it did not make it so here goes again.

Is this certain that Jones 1990, the data set was never audited and verified, the results replicated by another scientist? Has this been verified by a literature search or by any other satisfactory method of proof?

Just a simple yes or no. No spinning or changing the subject.

Can't answer simply 'yes' or 'no' to a multi-part question, followed by another.

There is no evidence that the paper was audited and verified as far as I can tell. The auditing could not have begun until this year (Jones wouldn't release his sources) and Keenan, while in the process of auditing the paper, cannot verify it.

The existing chinese station histories is now documented online at http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp039/tables/table1.html

Jones 1990: "The stations were selected on the basis of station history; we selected those with few, if any changes in instrumentation, location or observation times."

See for yourself. Can't be true as stated in regards to the station data we do have.

Regarding many of the "missing" station histories, Zeng in the unrelated NDP-039 1997 states "Unfortunately, station histories are not currently available for any of the stations in the 205-station network; therefore, details regarding instrumentation, collection methods, changes in station location or observing times, and official data sources are not known."

The histories we do have don't jive with Jones 1990, and the histories we don't have were unobtainable by Zeng in 1997, and are still unobtainable by Keenan in 2007. We only have the word of Jones et al that they were attainable in 1990, and given that the currently obtainable records don't fly we can only speculate disfavorably as to their quality even if they did exist.

I'm sorry if this sounds like spin.. I honestly am not trying to spin it. My focus here was intended to be on the repeated failing of the peer review process as applied to climate science. Skeptics are often told that findings are "peer reviewed" and so should be trusted over other available evidence. :(

[mhaze]

Can't answer simply 'yes' or 'no' to a multi-part question, followed by another.

There is no evidence that the paper was audited and verified as far as I can tell. The auditing could not have begun until this year (Jones wouldn't release his sources) and Keenan, while in the process of auditing the paper, cannot verify it.

The existing chinese station histories is now documented online at http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp039/tables/table1.html

Jones 1990: "The stations were selected on the basis of station history; we selected those with few, if any changes in instrumentation, location or observation times."

See for yourself. Can't be true as stated in regards to the station data we do have.

Regarding many of the "missing" station histories, Zeng in the unrelated NDP-039 1997 states "Unfortunately, station histories are not currently available for any of the stations in the 205-station network; therefore, details regarding instrumentation, collection methods, changes in station location or observing times, and official data sources are not known."

The histories we do have don't jive with Jones 1990, and the histories we don't have were unobtainable by Zeng in 1997, and are still unobtainable by Keenan in 2007. We only have the word of Jones et al that they were attainable in 1990, and given that the currently obtainable records don't fly we can only speculate disfavorably as to their quality even if they did exist.

I'm sorry if this sounds like spin.. I honestly am not trying to spin it. My focus here was intended to be on the repeated failing of the peer review process as applied to climate science. Skeptics are often told that findings are "peer reviewed" and so should be trusted over other available evidence. :(

Zeng I am familiar with, and that document is online. It looked to me like Jones... well, like maybe he got sloppy on China. The part I looked into was rural vs urban and my impression on that was the Jones was just plain clueless as to the meanings of these terms as they might relater to UHI in China. Let's just say... maybe no boots on the ground?

Zeng still around? An email may be in order.

[mhaze]

histories we do have don't jive with Jones 1990, and the histories we don't have were unobtainable by Zeng in 1997, and are still unobtainable by Keenan in 2007. We only have the word of Jones et al that they were attainable in 1990

No, on thinking about it I would throw out immediately what conclusions he reached on the basis of Chinese data he can't produce and/or which can't be verified.

[rockoon]

Well the main conclusion that he reached was that the UHI effect would be ~0.05C in his (Jones 1986) gridded data.

I'm not sure that the global mean UHI would actualy be much different than that...

...but in Barrow, Alaska it is apparenty ~2.0C according to Hinkel and Nelson 2007. These guys didnt just farm for an existing temperature record. They actualy did real footwork research, and quite thoroughly it seems.

Now I would have thought that the UHI effect would be greatest in colder climates but González et al puts San Juan's UHI between 2.5C and 3.0C

There seems to be no shortage of localized UHI studies (I could probably go all night citing them.)

..and to think, many climate models are "calibrated" on this record :(

[fanboy]

How can the peer review process even begin to work when vital information isnt released until 17 years later, and then only released unwillingly through forcible legal action?I don't know. I do know that Nature also published the paper on Uri Geller by SRI researchers Puthoff and Targ. In that instance, Nature editors felt it nesesary to elaborate on why they chose to publish the paper and described that paper's peer review.

See, peer review is suposed to be balanced-out by repetition. I'm suprised that other scientists didn't duplicate the experiment as described in Nature. Even without the specific list of stations, shouldn't it have been posible to find stations acording to the quilty controlls stated in the paper?

I mean if a paper is peer-reviewed and published, great, but the experiment has to be replicated by other scientists also. If, folling the same procedures, they get a diffrent conclution then sceintific consencus should swing the other way.

[mhaze]

I don't know. I do know that Nature also published the paper on Uri Geller by SRI researchers Puthoff and Targ. In that instance, Nature editors felt it nesesary to elaborate on why they chose to publish the paper and described that paper's peer review.

See, peer review is suposed to be balanced-out by repetition. I'm suprised that other scientists didn't duplicate the experiment as described in Nature. Even without the specific list of stations, shouldn't it have been posible to find stations acording to the quilty controlls stated in the paper?

I mean if a paper is peer-reviewed and published, great, but the experiment has to be replicated by other scientists also. If, folling the same procedures, they get a diffrent conclution then sceintific consencus should swing the other way.


the issue that concerned me about China was simply if he had got "rural VS urban" wrong he at least proportionally got wrong conclusions for that entire land mass because some places those stations one way far apart.

From the comments here (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/03/23/new-paper-on-solar-climate-forcing/)I contribute these UHI studies -


It is not just Torok who is reporting urban heat islands causing spurious trends in the surface temperature record. As he says, his results may not be universally applicable to the globe, but they are in line with other studies.
Gonzalez et al find an urban heat island of as much as 3 C in San Juan, Puerto Rico and state “a recent climatological analysis of the surface temperature of the city has revealed that the local temperature has been increasing over the neighboring vegetated areas at a rate of 0.06 C per year for the past 30 years.”
De Laat and Maurellis state “the ‘real’ global mean surface temperature trend is very likely to be considerably smaller than the temperature trend in the CRU data.”
Oke finds urban heat islands of 2 to 2.5 C in towns with populations of 1000 people.
Hinkel et al found that Pt. Barrow is 2.2 C warmer than the surrounding countryside in winter and its population is 4600 people. The formula for this town in winter would be 1.85*log(pop). It also corresponds to about 0.22 C/decade warming from 1900 to 2000.
Streuker finds that “over the course of 12 years, between 1987 and 1999, the mean nighttime surface temperature heat island of Houston increased 0.82 ± 0.10 C”.
Bottyan et al find that in Debrechen, Hungary, with a population of 220,000, has “the strongest developments of UHI occurring in the warmer and colder periods were 5.8 C and 4.9 C respectively.”
Bohm finds in Vienna that suburban areas had an excess warming of 0.11 to 0.21 C compared to rural areas over 45 years or 0.025 C /decade to 0.047 C/decade. In the urban center there was no warming, but in areas with intensive urban development there was a 0.6 C warming or 0.13 C/decade.
Looking at Shanghai, Chen et al a 1 C greater warming in the city compared to the countryside for 1977 to 1997 or 0.5 C/decade. They conclude “the main factor causing the intensity of the heat island in Shanghai is associated with the increasing energy consumption due to economic development.”
Zhou et also looked at Chinese data and “estimated warming of mean surface temperature of 0.05 C per decade attributable to urbanization,” which they say “is much larger than previous estimates for other periods and locations, including the estimate of 0.027 C/decade for the continental U.S. (Kalnay and Cai, 2003).” They qualify it by saying the numbers apply to winter and China is rapidly developing.
In Seoul, Korea, Chung et al find the change of annual mean daily mean temperature at Seoul was an increase of 0.55 C, or 0.275 C per decade (indicative of an urban-induced warming of 0.2 C per decade in addition to the regional background warming of 0.075 C per decade).
In Mexico, Jáuregui finds the average trend for the seven large cities was 0.57 C/decade, while the average trend for the seven mid-sized cities was 0.37 C/decade, so large cities have at least a 0.2 C/decade spurious warming due to urban effects.
Frauenfeld et al. report that over the period 1958-2000, “time series based on aggregating all station data on the Tibetan Plateau show a statistically significant positive trend of 0.16 C/decade,” as has also been reported by Liu and Chen (2000). However, they report that “no trends are evident in the ERA-40 data [i.e., the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) re-analysis] for the plateau as a whole.” Land use changes and urban heat islands seem to be causing a 0.16 C/decade warming here where the surface thermometers are placed.
The above articles give 13 cases where the UHI warming per decade is reported. The numbers in increasing order are 0.00, 0.025, 0.027, 0.047, 0.050, 0.060, 0.13, 0.16, 0.20, 0.20, 0.22, 0.50, and 0.82. The mean value is 0.187 C/decade. The medium value is 0.13 C/decade. The two high values of 0.50 and 0.82 C/decade for Shanghai and Houston seem like outliers. Removing them gives a mean warming of 0.10 C/decade and a median value of 0.06 C/decade.
Bottom line: Urban heat trends are significant and can contribute significantly to the reported global warming of 0.06 C/decade. In fact, it could very well explain all the warming.


References:
Bohm, R. 1998. Urban bias in temperature time series - A case study for the city of Vienna, Austria. Climatic Change, 38, 113-128.
Bottyan, Z., Kircsi, A., Szeged, S. and Unger, J. 2005. The relationship between built-up areas and the spatial development of the mean maximum urban heat island in Debrecen, Hungary. International Journal of Climatology, 25, 405-418.
Chen, L., Zhu, W., Zhou, X. and Zhou, Z. 2003. Characteristics of the heat island effect in Shanghai and its possible mechanism. Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 20, 991-1001.
Chung, U., Choi, J. and Yun, J.I. 2004. Urbanization effect on the observed change in mean monthly temperatures between 1951-1980 and 1971-2000. Climatic Change, 66, 127-136.
De Laat, A.T.J. and Maurellis, A.N. 2004. Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends. Geophysical Research Letters, 31,1029.
Frauenfeld, O.W., Zhang, T. and Serreze, M.C. 2005. Climate change and variability using European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts re-analysis (ERA-40) temperatures on the Tibetan Plateau. Journal of Geophysical Research, 110, 1029.
Gonzalez, J.E., Luvall, J.C., Rickman, D., Comarazamy, D., Picon, A., Harmsen, E., Parsiani, H., Vasquez, R.E., Ramirez, N., Williams, R. and Waide, R.W. 2005. Urban heat islands developing in coastal tropical cities. EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 86, 397, 403.
Hinkel, K.M., Nelson, F.E., Klene, A.E. and Bell, J.H. 2003. The urban heat island in winter at Barrow, Alaska. International Journal of Climatology, 23, 1889-1905.
Jáuregui, E. 2005. Possible impact of urbanization on the thermal climate of some large cities in Mexico. Atmosfera,18, 249-252.
Liu, X. and Chen, B. 2000. Climatic warming in the Tibetan Plateau during recent decades. International Journal of Climatology, 20, 1729-1742.
Oke, T.R. 1973. City size and the urban heat island. Atmospheric Environment, 7, 769-779.
Streutker, D.R. 2003. Satellite-measured growth of the urban heat island of Houston, Texas. Remote Sensing of Environment, 85, 282-289.
Zhou, L., Dickinson, R.E., Tian, Y., Fang, J., Li, Q., Kaufmann, R.K., Tucker, C.J. and Myneni, R.B. 2004. Evidence for a significant urbanization effect on climate in China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101, 9540-9544.
Comment by Douglas Hoyt — March 29, 2006

[casebro]

Lessee, the gist of this is that the scientists credited only .5 degree of temp increase to UHI, and the rest of about 2 degrees to actual global warming?

Anybody got a clue as to what percent of climate stations are urban, vs rural?

I got intwerested in the AGW claims a few years ago. I found the NOAA site at that time. The baseline was stated as "there is no warming trend". Then about two years later, it said "there is a warming trend of .06 degrees per decade" erso. It took me a while to find what had changed. It was the way they credited UHI. What? I says, the NOAA usn't using raw data? They are using some kind of mythical adjustment factor? I've been an AGW skeptic ever since.

No fudge factors allowed. I'd say, throw out any urban data, it is polluted by the UHI. Now what do the thermometer records say? Oh, I guess there isn't enough data available, or they (Jones?) would have doen that to begin with. Or is it that once we eliminate the spurious urban data, the remainder wouldn't fit Jones' agenda?

Okay, so Mann didn't give us his data until Congress forced him to. Now we find that the whole increase concept was miscalculated, by Jones. Coupled with the fact that the last seven years show stability.

Can everybody see why GW skepticism seems valid?

Now, anybody care to wager on how long the big skeptics take to come out with a "Non-Urban temperature trend" graph?

[mhaze]

Lessee, the gist of this is that the scientists credited only .5 degree of temp increase to UHI, and the rest of about 2 degrees to actual global warming?


Just quick that is 0.05 degree, not 0.5

[varwoche]

If Jones fudged his data, this (obviously!) would be a bad thing, and worthy of exposing. I would have to delve deeper to see if this is the case. But even if the data was fudged, it's not clear to me that this 15 year old study is as significant as has been presented. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1741#more-1741
This raises questions about the validity of not only the conclusions of Jones 1990, but a lot of climate research since then which cites the paper. First of all, you are citing an agenda-driven blogger who in turn cites another source, and on that page there is some vague text and some more links. This is way too Kevin Bacon.

As to the climate research since the paper: You need to demonstrate that this 15 year old paper is as significant as you imply. For all I know, this is a tempest in a teapot.

I feel that the numerous cases of information obstruction in the field of climate science is very alarming. Even if you are correct about Jones, you are taking an unsupported leap here.

Climate scientists are held to a lower standard than scientists in other fields. More unsupported opinion.

[rockoon]

The failing of the climate science peer review process doesnt just hit what I guess can be called the "pro-AGW" papers. Studies critical of or contrary to AGW have also sailed right through the peer review process before flaws were found (ex: Soon 2003)

In some of these peer review problems, very basic errors in methodology have been discovered embarassingly late (such as using degrees instead or radians!)

Frabricated data has cropped up more than once, for instance Hunter et al 2003 in regards to sea level rise.

The peer review problem doesnt seem to be isolated on overly liberal acceptance of papers, but also on overly conservative refusals to publish papers (such as McIntyre et al 2003 and 2004)

It seems to me that the surest way to get published is to find out what the editor of the target journal wants to hear and then give it to him/her. :(

[rockoon]

First of all, you are citing an agenda-driven blogger who in turn cites another source, and on that page there is some vague text and some more links. This is way too Kevin Bacon.


Attacking the context instead of the content, eh?


Even if you are correct about Jones, you are taking an unsupported leap here.


Mann 98 also obstructed until faced with legal consequences (it took an act of congress), and the problems with that work is numerous.


More unsupported opinion.

Which field of science, other than climatology, do you get away with hiding your work? It certainly isnt Particle Physics, Aeronautics, Pharamoclogy, Radiology, Neurology, Immunology, Endocrinology, Cardiology, or Cosmology.

So which field of science is it? Pardon me for not knowing.

The premise of science is that it is repeatable. Obstruction prevents this verification. I don't know of any respected field where verification is actively prevented. If you will be so kind as to enlighten me...

[Schneibster]

There are three separate problems here.

First, the allegation is made that evidence was fabricated. This is an extremely serious charge; but rockoon doesn't even bother to check into the precise nature of the allegations, preferring to tar Jones and the other authors with a brush that his source applies to only one individual.

Second, the allegation that Jones et al. 1990 is based on fabricated evidence and that AGW "skepticism" is somehow justified by that fact makes no attempt to address the literally mountains of evidence from elsewhere, of many varying types, some so obvious that they're irrefutable (ice shelves breaking off the Antarctic, summer ice in the Arctic in obvious retreat). Proper skepticism would dictate that one look at all the data available before coming to a conclusion; any that are questionable should be discarded. Even if this data point is discarded, there are so many more that the conclusion stands.

Finally, none of this addresses the basic, obvious physical fact that if you add CO2 to the atmosphere, the planet will get warmer. It's kind of like arguing that the bubbles in the boiling water will cool it off so that it's not actually boiling, it just looks like it's boiling.

[geni]

Which field of science, other than climatology, do you get away with hiding your work? It certainly isnt Particle Physics, Aeronautics, Pharamoclogy, Radiology, Neurology, Immunology, Endocrinology, Cardiology, or Cosmology.


Particle Physics

So how come it took so long to catch Victor Ninov?

Aeronautics
at random lets see the the aeronautics data for the F22

Pharamoclogy
You must have missed the various drug companies getting into legal dificulties for hideing stuff.

Radiology is a field of medicine not research science

Immunology
Heh pretty certain there are things pharmaceutical companies keep quiet about.

Cosmology
Hubble data is generaly not released for the first 6 months. However since most data is collected through big publicaly funded interments data does tend to be rather open in this field.


So which field of science is it? Pardon me for not knowing.


Most of them. Data is expensive and if you can get 3-4 papers out of it you will get 3-4 papers out of it before releaseing any data if you can. Keeping you data under wraps is how you make sure you publish first.

In other cases it is simply that people don't care that much. People are not going to be asking for raw data for some standard organic paper.


The premise of science is that it is repeatable. Obstruction prevents this verification. I don't know of any respected field where verification is actively prevented. If you will be so kind as to enlighten me...

Cosmology no one can afford to build another of whatever it is you are useing.

But data has little to do with repeatabilty. For that all you need is the method. In fact it could be claimed that the value of a repertition is higher if you don't know the data (because then you can't bend yours to fit).

[mhaze]

But data has little to do with repeatabilty. For that all you need is the method. In fact it could be claimed that the value of a repertition is higher if you don't know the data (because then you can't bend yours to fit).

If I recall correctly, the method and specific algorithms was also refused to be released in this case (Jones et al).

[mhaze]

There are three separate problems here.

First, the allegation is made that evidence was fabricated. This is an extremely serious charge; but rockoon doesn't even bother to check into the precise nature of the allegations, preferring to tar Jones and the other authors with a brush that his source applies to only one individual.

Second, the allegation that Jones et al. 1990 is based on fabricated evidence and that AGW "skepticism" is somehow justified by that fact makes no attempt to address the literally mountains of evidence from elsewhere, of many varying types, some so obvious that they're irrefutable (ice shelves breaking off the Antarctic, summer ice in the Arctic in obvious retreat). Proper skepticism would dictate that one look at all the data available before coming to a conclusion; any that are questionable should be discarded. Even if this data point is discarded, there are so many more that the conclusion stands.

Finally, none of this addresses the basic, obvious physical fact that if you add CO2 to the atmosphere, the planet will get warmer. It's kind of like arguing that the bubbles in the boiling water will cool it off so that it's not actually boiling, it just looks like it's boiling.

It's important not to over generalize.

I think Rockoon did mention that he was not sure that even if the correct data was known, that the overall UHI effect would be > than the 0.05 degrees C number.

It is a serious charge.

IFFC the question was Zeng, from whom Jones got the data, said no, there were no records prior to 1990. And Jones has published that Zeng gave him records prior to 1990. But Jones will not release those data sets. Don't have time right now to look it up, but that is probably substantially correct.

It's not the only problem on this one, though.

[Schneibster]

It's important not to over generalize. Indeed.

I think Rockoon did mention that he was not sure that even if the correct data was known, that the overall UHI effect would be > than the 0.05 degrees C number.Then what are we arguing about?

It is a serious charge. Interestingly, it is not one being made in scholarly journals. Also interestingly, it's being made by an individual whose own earlier work was shown to be fatally flawed by confusion of units (radians vs. degrees). Not exactly the most credible of sources. If there's something definitive underlying this, it's not been shown by a reliable source.

IFFC the question was Zeng, from whom Jones got the data, Nope. From whom Wang got the data he gave to Jones, according to Jones, Wang, and Zeng.

said no, there were no records prior to 1990. No, there were no electronic records prior to 1990.

And Jones has published that Zeng gave him records prior to 1990. Written records. Not electronic.

But Jones will not release those data sets. Please show a reputable source that says this; if I were Jones, I wouldn't pay any attention to McIntyre after the radians/degrees debacle either. It is also entirely possible that Jones does not have them; Wang apparently doesn't. Zeng has stated she doesn't. The Chinese government does, assuming it has not destroyed them; the Chinese are not particularly receptive to AGW given their current activities, and have a history of suppressing inconvenient data. So basically what's being said here is that because the Chinese government will not surrender temperature records that were used for a paper, the people who wrote the paper are lying.

This is generally called a non-sequitur. Of course, never mind logic or anything like that.

Don't have time right now to look it up, but that is probably substantially correct. It would appear not to be substantially correct in factual terms, though it is a substantially correct representation of the OP's position.

It's not the only problem on this one, though.Oh, really? Do tell. I'm all ears. Pardon me if I get a bit irritable, however; it probably comes of finding exactly the same thing whenever such claims are investigated: nothing at all.

[rockoon]

Indeed.

Then what are we arguing about?


The failing of the peer review process in regards to climate science.


Interestingly, it is not one being made in scholarly journals. Also interestingly, it's being made by an individual whose own earlier work was shown to be fatally flawed by confusion of units (radians vs. degrees).


A little bit religious for you? You are protesting in a thread when you dont even know what the subject is.

McKitrick isnt making the charge, Keenan is. Further, The blog I referenced is run by McIntyre, not McKitrick.

Youve got your facts all screwed up yet again.


Not exactly the most credible of sources. If there's something definitive underlying this, it's not been shown by a reliable source.


Not exactly the most accurate assumptions on your part. Can't seperate one man from another, can't read the original post, can't follow the link in the original post, and can't argue rationally. Don't mess up my thread with your uneducated speculative incorrect innuendo.


Please show a reputable source that says this; if I were Jones, I wouldn't pay any attention to McIntyre after the radians/degrees debacle either.


What does McIntyre have to do with the radians/degrees debacle? Don't mess up my thread with your uneducated speculative incorrect innuendo.

[rockoon]

Particle Physics

So how come it took so long to catch Victor Ninov?


In the Ninov case there was a review of the data, which was and still is actualy available. This is infact the endpoint of the scandal surrounding him. Deception, but no obstruction.

This is not possible with Jones 1990, because the data is unavailable, and was apparently never available, and Jones et al obstructed the revelation of this very fact for 17 years.

Deception AND obstruction.

See the difference?


Aeronautics
at random lets see the the aeronautics data for the F22


What does the proprietary data for an F22, which is not a scientific study drawing a conclusion published in a peer reviewed journal, have to do with this? :confused:


Pharamoclogy
You must have missed the various drug companies getting into legal dificulties for hideing stuff.


Show me where a scientist in the field hid data and obstructed verification for a peer reviewed paper.

I will gladly include this field as well as any other field where you can do that.

I am still unaware of a field held to such low standards as climate science.


Immunology
Heh pretty certain there are things pharmaceutical companies keep quiet about.


"companies" again? We are talking about scientists writing peer reviewed papers and obstructing the verification of those studies.


Cosmology
Hubble data is generaly not released for the first 6 months. However since most data is collected through big publicaly funded interments data does tend to be rather open in this field.


No obstruction then?


Cosmology no one can afford to build another of whatever it is you are useing.


..who is obstructing verification here? Cite an example.


But data has little to do with repeatabilty. For that all you need is the method.


What if you have neither? Jones 1990 is a peer reviewed paper that did not disclose the data under consideration and further did not disclose the methodology used for culling the data to find quality sources. The summation of their methodology statement regarding the culling is "few, if any"

This swept right by the peer review process, which should have already been skeptical since Jones 1990 is a defensive paper countering criticisms of Jones 1986.

Maybe Nature was in a rush to publish a paper on a hot topic? :(


In fact it could be claimed that the value of a repertition is higher if you don't know the data (because then you can't bend yours to fit).

This assumes that you can collect data fitting the requirements set forth. Such data apparently never existed.

[geni]

In the Ninov case there was a review of the data, which was and still is actualy available. This is infact the endpoint of the scandal surrounding him. Deception, but no obstruction.

Except the problem was picked up by the team no one else.


What does the proprietary data for an F22, which is not a scientific study drawing a conclusion published in a peer reviewed journal, have to do with this? :confused:

It is safe to assume scientific study was involved. Access to such data is being obstructed.



Show me where a scientist in the field hid data and obstructed verification for a peer reviewed paper.

Vioxx GI Outcomes Research study



I am still unaware of a field held to such low standards as climate science.


You don't deal with organic chemistry (where papers are true for a given value of true. If you don't belive me try getting some of the reported yields).


No obstruction then?


As I said it's a wierd field.


..who is obstructing verification here? Cite an example.


Banks, goverments people who expect to get paid. Everything done on the LHC will not be posible to independantly replicate. Same for some of the work done on Neutrinos.


What if you have neither? Jones 1990 is a peer reviewed paper that did not disclose the data under consideration and further did not disclose the methodology used for culling the data to find quality sources. The summation of their methodology statement regarding the culling is "few, if any"


I'm not interested in summations


This swept right by the peer review process, which should have already been skeptical since Jones 1990 is a defensive paper countering criticisms of Jones 1986.

Maybe Nature was in a rush to publish a paper on a hot topic? :(


Or maybe they know more than you do about publishing relivant papers.


This assumes that you can collect data fitting the requirements set forth.


Um why? I can make the date fit them.

[rockoon]

Karl et al 1989:
Results indicate that in the United States the two global land-based temperature data sets have an urban bias between +0.1-C and +0.4-C over the twentieth century (1901-84). This bias is as large or larger than the overall temperature trend in the United States during this time period, +0.16-C/84 yr.

Hansen et al 1995:
Errors in surface air temperature trends due to changes of instrumentation, station location, and diurnal sampling can be substantial at individual locations and require continuing attention (Karl and Williams, 1987). The most serious problem is probably urban heat island effects, which tend to be systematic. Hansen and Lebedeff (1987) found the global warming of the past century in their analysis to be reduced 0.1 degree C when cities of population more than 100,000 were excluded, and they estimated the total global-mean urban effect to be 0.1-0.2 degrees C. A more precise test for the United States, based on comparing rural and MCDW stations, revealed large differences in certain regions such as southern California, but averaged over the contiguous United States the temperature change of MCDW and rural stations differed by only 0.1 degrees C (Hansen et al., 1991)

It is looking like the Jones 1990 frabrication did have a significant impact on the conclusions they drew.

The IPCC used the 0.05C figure in their 2001 "Scientific Basis" report.

In their 2007 "Physical Science Basis" report they give 0.006C per decade. I am at a loss as to where they got this figure from. Any ideas?

[rockoon]

Except the problem was picked up by the team no one else.

You mean after harsh criticism and accusations of fraud by "no one else"?


It is safe to assume scientific study was involved. Access to such data is being obstructed.


Published and peer reviewed study. Yes, or no?

Clearly if there is no submission for a peer review, then the peer review process cannot work.

What exactly are you arguing here? That non-peer-reviewed science is equivilent to peer reviewed science? If the peer review pretense is to have any weight at all, then they are not equivilent.

Note that people question the validity of Keenans conslusions because he hasn't published in a peer reviewed journal yet, not because there is something necessarily wrong with his conclusions.

Is it both ways?


Vioxx GI Outcomes Research study


Thanks. I'm looking into it. There seems to be a lot to wade through.


Banks, goverments people who expect to get paid. Everything done on the LHC will not be posible to independantly replicate. Same for some of the work done on Neutrinos.


I'm not sure that I buy this arguement... the LHC isnt even finished yet, and it is going to in part be used to veryify the results from other colliders.


I'm not interested in summations


Sorry, but all they gave was a summation.

And I quote: "The stations were selected on the basis of station history; we selected those with few, if any changes in instrumentation, location or observation times."

Can you derive their methodology from this?


Or maybe they know more than you do about publishing relivant papers.


I'm sure they do...

What criteria do you suppose is used in the peer review of that paper?

Um why? I can make the date fit them.

But you cannot satisfy the "few, if any" condition according to Keenan.

[mhaze]

The assertion about F22 reseach data being a valid example actually made me laugh.

I figured it would not be long before attempts would be made to move this thread off of the subject of "Jones et al 1990" and his research data. Ain't going down that road, not me.

Jones et al 1990 is worth a looksee.

[mhaze]

Zeng has stated she doesn't. The Chinese government does, assuming it has not destroyed them; the Chinese are not particularly receptive to AGW given their current activities, and have a history of suppressing inconvenient data. So basically what's being said here is that because the Chinese government will not surrender temperature records that were used for a paper, the people who wrote the paper are lying.

This is generally called a non-sequitur. Of course, never mind logic or anything like that.Driving around today I also got to wondering about the Chinese government and that at one time, they might hand over something, then at another time, say it did not exist. You've got a string of speculations there, they are interesting and certainly possible.

You brought up the issue of electronic vs. paper records.

Perhaps they were never scanned in, maybe in an archive box somewhere, but a scientist does not want to go find them just because some troublemaker asked him for them so that he could replicate the work (but knowing that it was a troublemaker). Is that one possible explanation?

I'm going to dig back into this a bit and get back on it.

[mhaze]

Driving around today I also got to wondering about the Chinese government and that at one time, they might hand over something, then at another time, say it did not exist. You've got a string of speculations there, they are interesting and certainly possible.

You brought up the issue of electronic vs. paper records.

Perhaps they were never scanned in, maybe in an archive box somewhere, but a scientist does not want to go find them just because some troublemaker asked him for them so that he could replicate the work (but knowing that it was a troublemaker). Is that one possible explanation?

I'm going to dig back into this a bit and get back on it.

In the data set for 1990 Jones et al (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/jonesetal1990/) here I quote (bolding is mine) -

The units of the annual temperature values are rounded to degrees and tenths (e.g. 215 is 21.5°C). The data files contain the original (as supplied) annual average temperatures for the sites, the only data (i.e. not monthly) that was available to the 1990 study. For Australia, the annual temperature averages must be calculated by averaging the annual maximums and minimums, which are given consecutively in the file.
So we have files with yearly averages for China and Russia - fine.
For Australia, we take (Tmax+Tmin)/2 to get the average temperature.
Surely not. They can't be that stupid. Where is my mistake?

[my_wan]

There is absolutely no doubt global warming is occurring. The issue is over our contribution to it.
Disclaimer: This rebuttal is by no means a denial that we are responsible for contributing to global warming.

There are three separate problems here.

First, the allegation is made that evidence was fabricated. This is an extremely serious charge; but rockoon doesn't even bother to check into the precise nature of the allegations, preferring to tar Jones and the other authors with a brush that his source applies to only one individual.

The evidence did not show fabrication. It showed Intentionally false claims about the quality of data. This followed by an attempt to hide the fact implying the possibility of stronger accusations, especially selective data. Also there was some counter data that was truncated not fabricated.

Second, the allegation that Jones et al. 1990 is based on fabricated evidence and that AGW "skepticism" is somehow justified by that fact makes no attempt to address the literally mountains of evidence from elsewhere, of many varying types, some so obvious that they're irrefutable (ice shelves breaking off the Antarctic, summer ice in the Arctic in obvious retreat). Proper skepticism would dictate that one look at all the data available before coming to a conclusion; any that are questionable should be discarded. Even if this data point is discarded, there are so many more that the conclusion stands.

This stance belies the fact that this data was used for fitting models and support for a wide range of other papers. This is far more than just a single "data point" to be discarded. You "irrefutable" is just plain silly as I will be articulating.

Finally, none of this addresses the basic, obvious physical fact that if you add CO2 to the atmosphere, the planet will get warmer. It's kind of like arguing that the bubbles in the boiling water will cool it off so that it's not actually boiling, it just looks like it's boiling.

This "obvious physical fact" is another statement I will take issue with. Correlation does not show causation. The fact of the matter is that we are at a natural geological high for both CO2 and temperature. Look at the geologic record for CO2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png
We have contributed to this significantly but the graph starting at about 175 exaggerates the appearance. Now look at roughly the same time scale for temperature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png
You will notice that historically CO2 and temperatures correlate well but present temperatures are well in line with this point in the natural geological cycle. So is the temperatures driven by CO2 levels? Are CO2 levels driven by temperatures? Are they both driven by other mechanism known or not? In spite of climatologist funding going from about 100 million to about 1.7 billion little attention has been given to the mechanism of these natural cycles. It's geared around proving our responsibility for the present highs. At least one point in geologic history (Ordovician period) experienced an ice age in spite of CO2 levels being far higher than today. Up until the 70s global temperatures were falling. If we are at a natural high point in both CO2 and temperatures we can't call melting ice evidence much less "irrefutable". We certainly didn't melt the ice that covered a good portion of the U.S. relatively recently.

So what evidence are we left with? We have the rate of temperature increase significantly outstripping historical rates of change. This is why the evidence is so sensitive to good data over a very short period geologically. This is why the Jones et al deception is so crucial. As noted throwing his data out also requires us to reevaluate a huge volume of other peoples data.

This situation is exacerbated by the political and funding situation. Careers are being destroyed over simple suggestions of counter mechanisms. Peer journals are ignoring or playing games with papers dealing with counter examples. These journals will publish criticisms immediately but delay responses many months. With the case for a human factor in global warming so exquisitely sensitive to good data over just a few decades these conditions are essentially destroying the truth we can learn from the science of climatology. It takes very little bias to shove the evidence in either direction. Quit using silly statement like "obvious physical fact" to describe correlations and "irrefutable" when some warm air melts ice and start demanding honest data that we can actually use.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

[varwoche]

Attacking the context instead of the content, eh? I'm simply pointing out that multi-level indirection (via agenda-driven bumblers no less!) is a non-optimal way to communicate, and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect better on a skeptical forum. You should cite/quote direct sources if you want your claim to be taken seriously.

On the other hand, this is a good way to obvuscate.

[mhaze]

I'm simply pointing out that multi-level indirection (via agenda-driven bumblers no less!) is a non-optimal way to communicate, and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect better on a skeptical forum. You should cite/quote direct sources if you want your claim to be taken seriously.


Varwoche I was going to revisit and study these before posting them but I agree with you that direct sources should be out. This is what I have now.
This is a rapidly evolving story. It seems to be changing daily...

Jones et. al. Data sources -

Keenan's draft copy (http://www.informath.org/WCWF07a.pdf) of assertion of fabricated claims by Wang. So Keenan is serious, and if he is wrong, there could be libel charges, I would think.

Summary of 35 histories (http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5620/b17.htm) out of 84 Chinese weather stations. 35 is all that is said to exist. Years are 1954-1983.

Data used (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/jonesetal1990/) in the Jones et al 1990 paper

Zeng. NDP-039 Two long term climatic databases (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ndps/ndp039.html)of the PRC (leads to pdf)

[Schneibster]

The failing of the peer review process in regards to climate science.Uh huh. They published YOUR favorite paper, too, or did you forget?

A little bit religious for you? Ad hom much?

You are protesting in a thread when you dont even know what the subject is.Oh, really? I'd say the subject is how "globul warming sciensetis are wrnog," like every other thread you've started or participated in to any extent on this forum.

McKitrick isnt making the charge, Keenan is. Further, The blog I referenced is run by McIntyre, not McKitrick.Oh me, oh my, I referenced the wrong author of the paper that had the error in it. Fine, McIntyre, if you prefer- I still wouldn't pay much attention to anyone who was the author of a paper that had an error like confusing radians and degrees in it. Whatever. Happy now?

Not exactly the most accurate assumptions on your part. Can't seperate one man from another, can't read the original post, can't follow the link in the original post, and can't argue rationally. Don't mess up my thread with your uneducated speculative incorrect innuendo.Innuendo? Argue rationally? This from someone who accuses me of being religious? You got to be kidding, or insane. I'm betting on the second.

What does McIntyre have to do with the radians/degrees debacle? Oh, I dunno, maybe it's the presence of his name as an author on the paper in question? Or is that somehow not so in your little world?

Don't mess up my thread with your uneducated speculative incorrect innuendo.Don't post threads full of BS on the science forum if you don't want someone to point out they're BS. Go contaminate CT for a change.

[rockoon]

On the other hand, this is a good way to obvuscate.

It is also a good way to begin with comments from that blog.

Yes the people there come preloaded with skepticism, but what precisely about McIntyres blog is unreasonable?

Is the unreasonable part McIntyre himself? I believe that he is trying to do his review of climate science as honestly as he can. Sure, he is not always right, but if you read his blog you will find that he isnt afraid to admit when he is wrong and is willing to correct his methodology, which he puts out there for review. Most people do not know that he is one of the 2000+ "top scientists" reviewing for the IPCC.

For whatever it is worth, McIntyre is now a significant figure in climate science and I do not see a problem with linking to his blog.

[rockoon]

Oh, really? I'd say the subject is how "globul warming sciensetis are wrnog," like every other thread you've started or participated in to any extent on this forum.


So you declare the subject of this thread without even reading it. You still havent read it, and I am going to prove it.


Oh me, oh my, I referenced the wrong author of the paper that had the error in it. Fine, McIntyre, if you prefer-


No, McIntyre did not author the paper you cited had problems with angles vs degrees. The authors of that paper were McKitrick and Micheals, and I brought up that very failing of the peer review process before you arrived in this thread.


I still wouldn't pay much attention to anyone who was the author of a paper that had an error like confusing radians and degrees in it. Whatever. Happy now?


See? You do not listen.

McKitrick and Michaels wrote the peper with that error in it. McIntrye was not an author of it. You even quoted me explaining to you that McIntyre didnt author that paper.

There, I've proved it. You arent even reading this thread. You arent even reading the posts that you reply to.


Innuendo? Argue rationally? This from someone who accuses me of being religious? You got to be kidding, or insane. I'm betting on the second.


You came on this thread and falsly accused Keenan of making.. no wait.. make that falsly accused McIntyre of making some error that someone else made.

Your FIRST irrational innuendo was that McIntyre = Keenan
Your SECOND irrational innuendo was that McIntyre = McKitrick


Oh, I dunno, maybe it's the presence of his name as an author on the paper in question? Or is that somehow not so in your little world?


McIntyre's name is not present as an author of the paper in question. Thats McKitrick and Michaels. Let me explain this to you one more time. McKitrick and Michaels.

McKitrick has nothing to do with this thread, he has nothing to do with the evidence against Jones 1990, and he has nothing to do with the blog page I linked to.

Your false innuendo is that he does have something to do with it. Your false innuendo is that what McKitrick did somehow relates to this thread. That your false innuendo.


Don't post threads full of BS on the science forum if you don't want someone to point out they're BS. Go contaminate CT for a change.

The person in error here is you, and I highly doubt you will find anybody to back you up that any of these are true:

Keenan = McIntyre
McKitrick = McIntyre
Michaels = McIntyre

The paper you so crudely cite with the errors with degrees vs radians is McKitrick and Michaels 2004.

I hope you arent a climate scientist, pal, because you can't keep your facts straight.

[mhaze]

For whatever it is worth, McIntyre is now a significant figure in climate science and I do not see a problem with linking to his blog.

Keenan's draft copy (http://www.informath.org/WCWF07a.pdf)

my head is reeling...

[rockoon]

Keenan's draft copy (http://www.informath.org/WCWF07a.pdf)

my head is reeling...

Besides the fact that someone in the Jones 1990 team wasnt doing science.. What Keenan is also exposing is at least two failing events of the peer review process.

From childrens television here in America: "One of these things is not like the others"

[rockoon]

Isnt it true that journals often require the authors to archive their data and methodology? I know I had read that somewhere...

[mhaze]

Isnt it true that journals often require the authors to archive their data and methodology? I know I had read that somewhere...

I think that's unevenly implemented in practice.

What is quite interesting in Jones et. al. is that we are not talking here about LHC collider data sets, but instead simple data sets that can be cranked on any personal computer in a spreadsheet, or a quick program.

BTW are the Jones papers in question on line anywhere?

[mhaze]

Isnt it true that journals often require the authors to archive their data and methodology? I know I had read that somewhere...

Have you found Jones et al 1990 online?

[geni]

Published and peer reviewed study. Yes, or no?
Clearly if there is no submission for a peer review, then the peer review process cannot work.
What exactly are you arguing here? That non-peer-reviewed science is equivilent to peer reviewed science? If the peer review pretense is to have any weight at all, then they are not equivilent.

Your intial statement failed to mention anything about peer review so I gave examples where data is supressed


Thanks. I'm looking into it. There seems to be a lot to wade through.


Not really. They gave the information they were legaly required to do so to the FDA but didn't provide it in the context of their paper.


I'm not sure that I buy this arguement... the LHC isnt even finished yet, and it is going to in part be used to veryify the results from other colliders.


It's a well known problem in certian aread of particle physics and cosmology. Due to the small number of insterments independent replication is a real pain.



And I quote: "The stations were selected on the basis of station history; we selected those with few, if any changes in instrumentation, location or observation times."

Can you derive their methodology from this?


I can derive a methodology from it. Close enough that if I get a different answer they had better have a very good explanation.


I'm sure they do...

What criteria do you suppose is used in the peer review of that paper?


The usual ones.


But you cannot satisfy the "few, if any" condition according to Keenan.

Of course I can. They all stayed in china didn't they? Observation times stayed the same within expected margins of error (the shift isn't going to be more than 12 hours is it)? Instrumentation is trickier but you can play we "no reliable record of any change".

[mijopaalmc]

Have you found Jones et al 1990 online?

Not without a subscription. (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v347/n6289/abs/347169a0.html). I would suggest going to your nearest academic library to print it out.

[mhaze]

Of course I can. They all stayed in china didn't they? Observation times stayed the same within expected margins of error (the shift isn't going to be more than 12 hours is it)? Instrumentation is trickier but you can play we "no reliable record of any change".

The issue in China is the population movements and the dense way people tend to live. So a temperature meter in a field 100 yards from a house 20 years later is surrounded by houses reflecting the sun and the drifting currents of air from propane cook stoves. That's obviously no good.

Do we can know that the China sites were relatively safe from this type of data contamination over time? The subject of the study is UHI, therefore it is critical. Therefore, if a site starts "rural" it must stay "rural" for the data to be good.

The issue really is not the times of measurement, but the fact that in the absence of affirmative data records that show the data to be from a similar and consistent siting over time - then, can the data still be used?

A site move may be a good thing. Some obsessive compulsive guy might have moved the site four times to keep it the same distance from buildings and other heat emitting objects according to the standards of siting.

But what if there are no records to prove this up? Arguably we can still look at the site and the way that community has grown around it over the last century, right? One could go to the village or city and talk to old timers (No record of Jones or Wang doing anything like this that I have found)

In the absence of being able to prove quality according to standards, can we use the data and just well...just fib about it's quality?

Maybe this would never have mattered. But funniest thing, UHI became important.

[rockoon]

I can derive a methodology from it. Close enough that if I get a different answer they had better have a very good explanation.


How can you get an answer when you cannot fulfill the methodology? The data doesnt exist. They can state that you havent fulfilled the quality control requirements. Waving your hands saying that you cannot fulfill them isnt enough to show that they could not fulfill them, unless they reveal their data sources.

Since you cannot show that you fulfilled them to any reasonable degree you shouldnt even have gotten so far as to even have an answer, so if you have one to compare againt theirs then it is no suprise that it is different.

It is only after they reveal their data source that you can show that the requirements were unfulfillable in cases like this. This is not like chemistry where you can generate your own data in a lab - you have to use the existing external data sources.

Disclosing the methodology is not enough, and things are worse when its vague. Disclosing both methodology and data is required.


The usual ones.


You mean like archiving their data? That is a requirement of most journals. I knew I had read it somewhere and for what its worth, the wikipedia article on the peer review process mentions it.

Maybe Nature has lower standards than most journals?


Of course I can. They all stayed in china didn't they? Observation times stayed the same within expected margins of error (the shift isn't going to be more than 12 hours is it)? Instrumentation is trickier but you can play we "no reliable record of any change".

Do you think that this arguement is scientific, or semantic?

[Schneibster]

So you declare the subject of this thread without even reading it. You still havent read it, and I am going to prove it.Fine, whatever, I don't much bother to read yet another screed from the local climate loon. I also don't much bother to read discredited research.

Sue me.

[rockoon]

Fine, whatever, I don't much bother to read yet another screed from the local climate loon.

More personal attacks? When you have an arguement with substance, get back to me.


I also don't much bother to read discredited research.
Sue me.

Is this an admission that you were wrong yet again, or an admission that you tried to sully Keenans name with your uneducated speculative incorrect innuendo?

What is certainly true is that you don't "bother" to find out who wrote a piece of research while trying to come off as knowledgable on that very research which you didn't even "bother to read." :eye-poppi

[Schneibster]

Guess I know a whiner when I see one.

[rockoon]

Guess I know a whiner when I see one.

More personal attacks?

Heres a tip: If you want to come off looking good here, the first step is to admit that you were wrong multiple times and then appologize for wasting another persons time with your delusion.

[a_unique_person]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=43



There are quite a few reasons to believe that the surface temperature record (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=45) - which shows a warming of approximately 0.6°-0.8°C over the last century (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif) (depending on precisely how the warming trend is defined) - is essentially uncontaminated by the effects of urban growth and the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=44). These include that the land, borehole and marine records substantially agree; and the fact that there is little difference between the long-term (1880 to 1998) rural (0.70°C/century) and full set of station temperature trends (actually less at 0.65°C/century) (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/052.htm#2221). This and other information lead the IPCC to conclude that the UHI effect makes at most a contribution of 0.05°C to the warming observed over the past century.

More recently two papers have sought to show directly that the effect is minimal. David Parker in a recent paper in Nature (http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v432/n7015/abs/432290a_fs.html), said:
Urban heat islands occur mainly at night and are reduced in windy conditions. Here we show that, globally, temperatures over land have risen as much on windy nights as on calm nights, indicating that the observed overall warming is not a consequence of urban development.
The reasoning behind this is that the major cause of urban heat islands is the reduced cooling that occurs at night when the "view to space" of the surface is blocked by buildings. In more rural areas, cooling can be stronger. This is more likely to occur in calm conditions, when air near the surface is less well mixed with air higher up. Since the UHI effect is reduced in windy conditions, if the UHI effect was a significant component of the temperature record, then we would see a different rate of warming when observations are stratified by calm or windy conditions. The absence of such an effect (which is what Parker finds) is, conversely, evidence of a minimal UHI effect on the record.
The Parker paper, however, is very brief and recent and has not had time to be fully tested by the scientific community. A paper by Peterson (2003) is of interest because it has been out for a while and is more comprehensive. It agrees with Parker. The paper, "Assessment of urban versus rural in situ surface temperatures in the contiguous United States: No difference found" published in the Journal of Climate (http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?request=get-archive&issn=1520-0442) finds that the effects of the urban heat island may have been overstated and that "Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures.". This was done by using satellite-based night-light detection of urban areas, and more thorough homogenisation of the time series (with corrections, for example, for the tendency of surrounding rural stations to be slightly higher, and thus cooler, than urban areas). As the paper says, if its conclusion is accepted, then it is necessary to "unravel the mystery of how a global temperature time series created partly from urban in situ stations could show no contamination from urban warming". The main conclusion is that micro- and local-scale impacts dominate the meso-scale impact of the urban heat island: many sections of towns may be warmer than rural sites, but meteorological observations are likely to be made in park "cool islands".
The evidence points to a warming of about 0.6-0.8°C over the past century and a neglible effect on this from the UHI. While some 'contrarians' appear determined not to accept this finding, the evidence they cite appears thin indeed compared with the published research.

[mhaze]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=43

I'm having some difficulty making a connection between your assertions and the issue of possible fraud in the Jones et al 1990 case, please clarify.

[rockoon]

There is certainly value in showing that at least one study also came to the same basic conclusion as Jones 1990.

[mhaze]

There is certainly value in showing that at least one study also came to the same basic conclusion as Jones 1990.

No. There is merit in a new study that is done in a fashion that is replicable and repeatable, with open data and methods. That does not validate Jones it starts anew.

By the way these type studies should be easy to check with a personal computed, no supercomputer or complex modeling.

[Schneibster]

I keep tellin' 'em, AUP, the evidence is comprehensive and interlinked. You can't pick one piece out and say "it's wrong" without having a conflict with five other pieces of evidence that say the same thing, that were derived by completely different methodologies, using completely separate data, gathered from completely separate underlying physical phenomena. But it never gets through. This is the essence of skeptoidism: deny one thing, and keep denying it, ignoring the fact that you're denying not one thing, but also five others that agree with it.

[rockoon]

No. There is merit in a new study that is done in a fashion that is replicable and repeatable, with open data and methods. That does not validate Jones it starts anew.

By the way these type studies should be easy to check with a personal computed, no supercomputer or complex modeling.

You are wrong.

Another study with the same conclusion is evidence that Jones 1990 likely would have come to a very similar conclusions to the one it did had the data not been cooked.

This speaks to the intentions of dishonesty in Jones 1990.

We can only speculate as to why there was dishonesty in the Jones 1990 team, but it was probably was not to alter the conclusion.

That is meaningful to this discussion because it would be much harder for the peer review process to spot the problem if the conclusions are actualy correct.

[rockoon]

I keep tellin' 'em, AUP, the evidence is comprehensive and interlinked. You can't pick one piece out and say "it's wrong" without having a conflict with five other pieces of evidence that say the same thing, that were derived by completely different methodologies, using completely separate data, gathered from completely separate underlying physical phenomena. But it never gets through. This is the essence of skeptoidism: deny one thing, and keep denying it, ignoring the fact that you're denying not one thing, but also five others that agree with it.


Nobody is doing that here.

I declare you wrong for a 3rd time in this thread, and can prove all 3 instances.

Please admit that you were wrong 3 times, and appologize for wasting my time 3 times.

Thanks.

[Schneibster]

Nobody is doing that here. One piece of data: surface temperatures in China.

Yes, somebody IS doing that here, and would like to pretend they're not.

ETA: Doesn't it ever strike you as funny that you have CT-like "explanations" for how EVERY PIECE of data is somehow wrong or misinterpreted? Doesn't it ever occur to you that this is precisely the same thing they do over on the CT forum, and precisely the same thing the creationists do, and precisely the same thing the physics woos do, and precisely the same thing the believers in "the paranormal" do, and precisely the same thing the audiophools do, and precisely the same thing the thimerosal people do, and precisely the same thing the...

I mean, come ON, how stupid do you think people ARE, anyway? What, nobody's gonna notice? Get real.

[mhaze]

One piece of data: surface temperatures in China.

Yes, somebody IS doing that here, and would like to pretend they're not.

ETA: Doesn't it ever strike you as funny that you have CT-like "explanations" for how EVERY PIECE of data is somehow wrong or misinterpreted? Doesn't it ever occur to you that this is precisely the same thing they do over on the CT forum, and precisely the same thing the creationists do, and precisely the same thing the physics woos do, and precisely the same thing the believers in "the paranormal" do, and precisely the same thing the audiophools do, and precisely the same thing the thimerosal people do, and precisely the same thing the...

I mean, come ON, how stupid do you think people ARE, anyway? What, nobody's gonna notice? Get real.

I for one have no idea who you are talking to, what you are talking about, or what relation that has to the subject of this thread. I certainly have the impression that you and rockoon do not exactly get along, and presume that this is related to that in some fashion.

Please explain to me something. I may just plain be a little dense.

Some people were unhappy about the China data in Jones et. al. etc.
Information was finally dug out of them on the subject.
Someone is preparing allegations of fraud against Jones/Wang.
A thread was started about it.
People discuss it.

We are not in control of these events, and cannot influence them one way or another. The allegations of fraud may go nowhere, or they may go somewhere. It may have little side effects to other research, some moderate amount of side effects, or a substantial side effect.

Now, here is another situation that occurred (Wall Street Journal) Why was the Rep. getting involved? Was he part of the conspiracy too? I would like to know if you think that Barton did a good thing or a bad thing in voicing his concern. Does this make Barton a denialist?

Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton’s concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann’s work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested–a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis.

[mhaze]

You are wrong.

Another study with the same conclusion is evidence that Jones 1990 likely would have come to a very similar conclusions to the one it did had the data not been cooked.

This speaks to the intentions of dishonesty in Jones 1990.

We can only speculate as to why there was dishonesty in the Jones 1990 team, but it was probably was not to alter the conclusion.

That is meaningful to this discussion because it would be much harder for the peer review process to spot the problem if the conclusions are actualy correct.

Okay, I see your point. If he told them what they wanted to hear and other studies had said the same thing, then they wouldn't check that closely and possibly not at all. That doesn't mean it would be harder for the peer review process to spot the problem though, it just means they would have had to uh,

actually do the job they were supposed to do ;)

[rockoon]

One piece of data: surface temperatures in China.


Accuracy is never important to you, is it?

This isnt one piece of data, sir.

This is the exact 84 surface stations Jones 1990 looked at for China, whos record for exactly 29 years were considered by Jones 1990. Exactly 49 of these station don't have station history records at all inspite of the Jones 1990 claim. Of the exactly 35 remaining stations that do have station history records, those 35 do not have histories which match the methodology stated in Jones 1990.

Exactly 84 misrepresentations.


Yes, somebody IS doing that here, and would like to pretend they're not.


Evidence?

Hint: Telling us that we are are talking about something that isnt being discussed isnt evidence. Considering your outstanding accuracy record in this thread, I guess we should believe you, eh?


ETA: Doesn't it ever strike you as funny that you have CT-like "explanations" for how EVERY PIECE of data is somehow wrong or misinterpreted? ..snip..


Incorrect uneducated innuendo from a person who has now been wrong 4 times in this thread.

What kind of person does not admit when they are wrong? (perhaps a CT'r?)


I mean, come ON, how stupid do you think people ARE, anyway? What, nobody's gonna notice? Get real.

Stupid enough to believe that Jones 1990 was real science?

[rockoon]

Okay, I see your point. If he told them what they wanted to hear ..snip..


Slow down here.. how do we or could we know what the reviewers wanted to hear? This is exactly the sort of statement the religious AGW'rs would make. It isnt based on anything but innuendo.

We can only speculate that what they wanted to hear might have played a role in this, and further, we can only speculate that what they wanted to hear was what Jones 1990 said.

This is something that Schneibster doesnt understand either. He deludes himself with speculations about the complicated motives of others and then uses these speculations as if they were a logical arguement. Speculation about motives isnt a valid arguement here.


That doesn't mean it would be harder for the peer review process to spot the problem though, it just means they would have had to uh,


I think it does mean it would be harder because I expect a more rigourous review if the results are suprising or when the methodology is unprecedented in the field.

These results arent suprising if they closely agree with other estimates.

The stated methodology in Jones 1990 isnt unprecidented in climate science. Its ordinary and expected stuff.

Mann 98 (and beyond) on the other hand used methodology unprecedented in climate science. Specifically, Principle Component Analysis (PCA.) There should have been an extensive review by experts in PCA (specifically, expert statisticians) when Mann 98 published. There wasn't. Here, if the reviewer isnt familiar with PCA then the peer review process again cannot work.

Remember, if the paper is about climate then the reviewer(s) are currently expected to be climate experts. This is another failing in the peer review process. Sometimes climate research requires reviewers fluent in statistics, geology, biology, or even cosmology.

[mhaze]

Accuracy is never important to you, is it?

This isnt one piece of data, sir.

<etc>
Stupid enough to believe that Jones 1990 was real science?

I just noticed something funny, in both the odd and comedy sense of the word. Going to Realclimate.org, I find several of their rather arrogantly toned dismissals of Steve McIntyre's discuss of Mann and the Hockey Stick. May read those later, no time now. Here is the point -

There is nothing on Jones et. al. I guess that they don't want to defend that one. They defend virtually everything else.

If Realclimate.org doesn't want to defend Jones et. al., why in the world would pro AGW people on this forum care to?

Do they know more than Realclimate.org? Mann is one of the editors there.

[rockoon]

There is nothing on Jones et. al. I guess that they don't want to defend that one. They defend virtually everything else.

If Realclimate.org doesn't want to defend Jones et. al., why in the world would pro AGW people on this forum care to?

Do they know more than Realclimate.org? Mann is one of the editors there.

Well this Jones 1990 thing is rather new. Basically, it did not need defending until now. I doubt that there will be any defense of the unethical behavior within the Jones 1990 team, although their conclusions are open for defending.

A nice little suprise for everyone: The IPCC has finally put up the reviewer notes for the 4AR online. In quite a few cases the reviewer comments (especialy as pertaining to the confidence of data and/or conclusions) were simply "rejected" without expanation. I know that the IPCC peer review process is significantly different from scientific journals so I hesitate to draw connections between the two. It is what it is.

[Schneibster]

Accuracy is never important to you, is it?

This isnt one piece of data, sir.Sure it is. Surface temperature in China. That it was derived from multiple data points is immaterial; it is data of a single kind, about a single region.

Hint: Telling us that we are are talking about something that isnt being discussed isnt evidence. Considering your outstanding accuracy record in this thread, I guess we should believe you, eh?Considering how little I've put into it, I'd say I've gotten an outstanding result. :D

Evidence would be your little diatribe about how it's not one piece of evidence, it's 84 or whatever. Thanks for that. It's sort of like watching a cat try to cover up after it's just dumped on the carpet.

Incorrect uneducated innuendo from a person who has now been wrong 4 times in this thread.Then why bother to respond to it so vehemently? Yet another point of commonality with the CTers.

[rockoon]

Sure it is. Surface temperature in China. That it was derived from multiple data points is immaterial; it is data of a single kind, about a single region.


You used the phrase "how EVERY PIECE piece of data is somehow wrong or misinterpreted"

We are discussing 84 pieces of data, and yes they are "somehow" misinterpreted by Jones 1990. Every piece.

If I am in error, please show were in this thread someone was discussing other pieces of data and claimed they were wrong or misinterpreted.

I will freely admit that I am wrong when I am shown to be. Can you do it?


Considering how little I've put into it, I'd say I've gotten an outstanding result. :D


Is this an admission that you are trolling in order to derail any discussion which casts doubt as to the validy of your "single data point?"


Evidence would be your little diatribe about how it's not one piece of evidence, it's 84 or whatever.


Since we are discussing the Jones 1990 paper, and you freely admit (quoted bove) that we are discussing the vaidity of multiple data points here, then one must assume that the multiple data points being discussed is in Jones 1990. Specifically, we are discussing 84 data points used in Jones 1990.

You have created your own box and it doesnt look like your ego will fit in it.


Thanks for that. It's sort of like watching a cat try to cover up after it's just dumped on the carpet.


You mean like discussing any subject but those contained in the OP?

You mean like throwing out multiple personal insults immediately after you got trounced twice with your confusion between Keenan, McKitrick, and McIntyre?

You mean like trying to discuss CT'rs after being asked to admit that you were wrong?


Then why bother to respond to it so vehemently? Yet another point of commonality with the CTers.

You took it upon yourself to attack me personally and now claim that I am being 'vehement'?

You tried to escalate the discussion to a more heated level probably because you refuse to admit that you made multiple extremely gross errors that are trivial to verify are wrong by anyone who does a very simple fact check.

It is still McKitrick and Michaels and will remain McKitrick and Michaels long after your insults stop. Insults do not change facts.

[Schneibster]

You used the phrase "how EVERY PIECE piece of data is somehow wrong or misinterpreted" So you're maintaining a denialist stance on AGW based ONLY on the fact that Jones et al. 1990 MIGHT have problems?

Ludicrous.

Let me remind you of something you appear to have forgotten:

The statement you quoted from your source was: Did Jones et al 1990 “fabricate” its quality control claims?

My response was:

There are three separate problems here.

First, the allegation is made that evidence was fabricated. This is an extremely serious charge; but rockoon doesn't even bother to check into the precise nature of the allegations, preferring to tar Jones and the other authors with a brush that his source applies to only one individual. Note that the above claim does not differentiate between Jones or anyone else involved. Which is precisely what I said. You have not, I note, refuted it.

Second, the allegation that Jones et al. 1990 is based on fabricated evidence and that AGW "skepticism" is somehow justified by that fact makes no attempt to address the literally mountains of evidence from elsewhere, of many varying types, some so obvious that they're irrefutable (ice shelves breaking off the Antarctic, summer ice in the Arctic in obvious retreat). Proper skepticism would dictate that one look at all the data available before coming to a conclusion; any that are questionable should be discarded. Even if this data point is discarded, there are so many more that the conclusion stands. I see no reason to alter this statement, either. You have not addressed it; you are making every effort not to address it, but to confine your conversation to a single claim, the one above, which has already been shown to be false by your own reference.

Finally, none of this addresses the basic, obvious physical fact that if you add CO2 to the atmosphere, the planet will get warmer. It's kind of like arguing that the bubbles in the boiling water will cool it off so that it's not actually boiling, it just looks like it's boiling.This claim is also relevant; and also unrefuted.

So basically, I made three claims, all of which are true, none of which you have challenged successfully, and all of which are relevant to the subject at hand, the truth or falsity of global warming, and instead of answering them, you became abusive and have remained so. And you are not a conspiracy theorist. Have I got that right?

If I am in error, please show were in this thread someone was discussing other pieces of data and claimed they were wrong or misinterpreted.The entire point of the thread is to be another "questunnig globul warming" thread; sorry if you can't handle the implications of what you are saying. Yet another point of commonality between you and conspiracy theorists.

I will freely admit that I am wrong when I am shown to be. Can you do it?Sure. <points to the latest IPCC report, Larsen B collapse, current temperature and ice core data from Greenland, current ice coverage data from satellite pictures of the Arctic, current satellite atmospheric temperature data, current balloon atmospheric temperature data, current...>

Now, when the whole thing rests on one paper, I admit that seems a bit precarious. But when all the sources say the same thing and there are twenty or more, completely independent from one another, it's OVER.

But apparently not for the local climate loon.

Is this an admission that you are trolling in order to derail any discussion which casts doubt as to the validy of your "single data point?"Nope. It's an admission that I have made three extremely telling points, none of which you have answered, and gotten you to make a fool of yourself by being insulting and nasty while not answering them, making it obvious to anyone with a brain that you in fact don't have any answers.

Since we are discussing the Jones 1990 paper, Which you would like to do to the exclusion of all else, since all the other evidence renders discussion of the Jones 1990 paper moot,and you freely admit (quoted bove) that we are discussing the vaidity of multiple data points here, in addition to the Jones 1990 datathen one must assume that the multiple data points being discussed is in Jones 1990. When one assumes... ;)Specifically, we are discussing 84 data points used in Jones 1990. You may be. Unfortunately, it appears that you are discussing a dead issue. That would be because you are looking to smear the scientists who wrote one paper so that you can claim all of them are lying, your standard operating procedure which is clearly discernible in your responses to CD and myself. I object to the smearing of honest scientists by climate loons, so I have bothered myself to respond; and then further amused myself by watching you tie yourself in knots trying to figure out how to make me go away without actually admitting that you don't have any answer for the points I made.

You have created your own box and it doesnt look like your ego will fit in it.Pardon me? I don't have the ego to accuse a bunch of scientists I don't even know anything about except that they support a position I don't like, of falsifying their data. Seems to me that would, however, accurately describe YOU.

Furthermore, and much more tellingly, you also have not responded to the following post:



IFFC the question was Zeng, from whom Jones got the data,Nope. From whom Wang got the data he gave to Jones, according to Jones, Wang, and Zeng.

said no, there were no records prior to 1990.No, there were no electronic records prior to 1990.

And Jones has published that Zeng gave him records prior to 1990.Written records. Not electronic.

But Jones will not release those data sets.Please show a reputable source that says this; if I were Jones, I wouldn't pay any attention to McIntyre after the radians/degrees debacle either. It is also entirely possible that Jones does not have them; Wang apparently doesn't. Zeng has stated she doesn't. The Chinese government does, assuming it has not destroyed them; the Chinese are not particularly receptive to AGW given their current activities, and have a history of suppressing inconvenient data. So basically what's being said here is that because the Chinese government will not surrender temperature records that were used for a paper, the people who wrote the paper are lying. Tellingly, your only response is that "McIntyre wasn't responsible for the radians/degrees debacle."

So remind me again about how you've answered my arguments.

You mean like discussing any subject but those contained in the OP? I think the above quote answers this adequately.

You mean like throwing out multiple personal insults immediately after you got trounced twice with your confusion between Keenan, McKitrick, and McIntyre?"Trounced?" What, you answered the points made above? I didn't see it. Why don't you provide some links.

Oh, you mean you nit-picked a misstatement that had absolutely nothing to do with the facts of the matter, so now you've "trounced" me? Neato.

Just like every other conspiracy theorist.

You mean like trying to discuss CT'rs after being asked to admit that you were wrong?But, you see, I WASN'T wrong. You didn't challenge a single one of the salient facts I presented, because you know perfectly well every single one of them is supported by your own sources. The only thing you could find to do was to quibble about whether Jones would dismiss requests from that source out-of-hand because he was the one who made the radians/degrees mistake, or merely an associate of his.

You took it upon yourself to attack me personally and now claim that I am being 'vehement'?You claim I started the attacks when you picked a nit instead of answering the substance, and have continued to press the nit you picked as evidence I was "wrong" in order to cover up the fact that you don't have any answer to my substantive points?

You tried to escalate the discussion to a more heated level probably because you refuse to admit that you made multiple extremely gross errors that are trivial to verify are wrong by anyone who does a very simple fact check.And you're still picking that nit, and still ignoring the facts. Typical denier.

[CapelDodger]

Which you would like to do to the exclusion of all else, since all the other evidence renders discussion of the Jones 1990 paper moot.

The argument, and the arguer, still lodged firmly in the past because the present, and the intervening period, does not bear looking at. varwoche made this point some while ago, quite possibly years by now : the same arguments are being rehearsed, over the same damn' bone, as were being made back in 1990. If they could only finally convince everybody that Jones and Mann et al were engaged in a deliberate fabrication of a very accurate reconstruction at the later end - the Hockey Stick's blade just keeps getting longer - perhaps the ice would come back.

And of course it did before, after the Medieval Warm Period ... let alone the Holocene Maximum ... and what about the Permian, eh? Far more CO2 back then, and the polar bears came through it. Otherwise they wouldn't still be with us, would they?

[Schneibster]

The argument, and the arguer, still lodged firmly in the past because the present, and the intervening period, does not bear looking at. varwoche made this point some while ago, quite possibly years by now : the same arguments are being rehearsed, over the same damn' bone, as were being made back in 1990. If they could only finally convince everybody that Jones and Mann et al were engaged in a deliberate fabrication of a very accurate reconstruction at the later end - the Hockey Stick's blade just keeps getting longer - perhaps the ice would come back.The reason to stay lodged in the past being, the arguments against the science have demonstrably made the situation worse- because nothing was done about it when it was tractable. The idea is to avoid responsibility for pushing an irresponsible position; something I've noticed that this crowd excels at.

And of course it did before, after the Medieval Warm Period ... let alone the Holocene Maximum ... and what about the Permian, eh? Far more CO2 back then, and the polar bears came through it. Otherwise they wouldn't still be with us, would they?LOL, the idea of polar bears in the Permian is classic. It's like someone I recall who was complaining about the human race "polluting space." Completely clueless.

[rockoon]

So you're maintaining a denialist stance on AGW based ONLY on the fact that Jones et al. 1990 MIGHT have problems?


Where in this thread did I deny AGW?


Ludicrous.


Stop moving the goal post. Admit that you were wrong.


Note that the above claim does not differentiate between Jones or anyone else involved. Which is precisely what I said. You have not, I note, refuted it.


Jones is an author of the paper. No distinction need be made. You, remember, tried to associate McIntyre with a problem related to radians vs degrees. Your error in attribution not withstanding, I am using the same standard here as you.

If an author put his name on it, he is respondible for its content. Your standard AND mine.

My how small your box is.


I see no reason to alter this statement, either. You have not addressed it; you are making every effort not to address it, but to confine your conversation to a single claim, the one above, which has already been shown to be false by your own reference.


I just did in my last paragraph.

I used your standard, which I fully agree with, so you cannot argue it. We cannot trust an author who associates himself with bad science and covers it up for 17 years.


So basically, I made three claims, all of which are true


Keenan is neither McKitrick or Michaels.
McIntyre is neither McKitrick or Michaels.
I did not deny AGW in this thread.
There are 84 pieces of data in question here, not one.

Thats 4 claims of yours, all false.

Another of your false claims is that you made only 3 claims. We can play this nit-pick game if you want, but you are losing at every step because I let you hang yourself first. The problem with making claims and not making sure that they are true, is that they might not be. Yours havent been.


The entire point of the thread is to be another "questunnig globul warming" thread;


It is questioning the peer review process used in climate science. You have stated that it is not about that, but it is only you that is saying it. If you can find me saying anywhere in this thread that this thread is about global warming, be my guest and quote it. Prove me wrong.


Sure. <points to the latest IPCC report, Larsen B collapse, current temperature and ice core data from Greenland, current ice coverage data from satellite pictures of the Arctic, current satellite atmospheric temperature data, current balloon atmospheric temperature data, current...>


Nobody in this thread is questioning those things. We are questioning Jones 1990 and the peer review process. The only person to mention them is you. Feel free to prove me wrong and show where I mentioned anything about ice core data, ice coverage data, pictures of the arctic, satellite records, balloon records, or anything else. These things infact were not mentioned until now. You mentioned them. Do you feel that they should be part of the topic because they have peer review problems?


Now, when the whole thing rests on one paper, I admit that seems a bit precarious.


The whole thing being the thing you made up as being significant to this thread? This thread is Jones 1990 and the problems with the peer review process. Actualy, I am going to ammend the topic to include one more thing. You.


Nope. It's an admission that I have made three extremely telling points, none of which you have answered, and gotten you to make a fool of yourself by being insulting and nasty while not answering them, making it obvious to anyone with a brain that you in fact don't have any answers.


I don't have to address your points if by using your standards they go away. Jones signed off on the data. His is associated with fraud. Admit it and stop changing the subject.


Which you would like to do to the exclusion of all else, since all the other evidence renders discussion of the Jones 1990 paper moot


You didnt just say this, did you?

You just said that scientific fraud in regards to climate science is moot in a discussion about the peer review process regarding climate science.


When one assumes... ;)


So which data did I mentioned? Be specific. I want you to source the data used on your conclusion that there are "many" data points being discussed that are not used by Jones 1990.


You may be. Unfortunately, it appears that you are discussing a dead issue.


The fraud of Jones et al is a dead issue? The IPCC certainly doesnt think it is a dead issue (They reference Jones 1990)


That would be because you are looking to smear the scientists who wrote one paper so that you can claim all of them are lying


Where have I claimed that any others are lying? Please give a reference. Your delusion of a conspiracy against climate scientists is not evidence.


I object to the smearing of honest scientists by climate loons, so I have bothered myself to respond;


Earlier you said the purpose for responding was to get me agitated. Now it is because you are noble? The only person who attempted to smear someone unduely here is you when you tried to smear Keenan and McIntyre.


Pardon me? I don't have the ego to accuse a bunch of scientists I don't even know anything about except that they support a position I don't like, of falsifying their data. Seems to me that would, however, accurately describe YOU.


Actualy I know a lot about Jones. Try me. You however know very little about the people you tried to smear. You attributed the works of two completely different people with them, on the basis that "they were authors" of a paper they werent authors of.


Furthermore, and much more tellingly, you also have not responded to the following post:


I did not make the points mhill made and have no obligation to respond to your reply to him. Now I will respond.

Your points about written vs electronic records is not valid. Jones and Wang used a DOE/CAS report for their study and that report clearly states that the data is not available.


Tellingly, your only response is that "McIntyre wasn't responsible for the radians/degrees debacle."


You said the blog was run by the person responsible for it. He wasn't. Fact. Your point didnt need to be addressed because it was not factual.


Oh, you mean you nit-picked a misstatement that had absolutely nothing to do with the facts of the matter, so now you've "trounced" me? Neato.


Why are you making unfactual statements that have nothing to do with the matter?


Just like every other conspiracy theorist.


Name calling? Moving the goal post? Imagining motives? Attempting to smear unrelated people?

Yep, you are.


But, you see, I WASN'T wrong. You didn't challenge a single one of the salient facts I presented, because you know perfectly well every single one of them is supported by your own sources.


Infact, no. DOE/CAS was Jones et al's data source. Jones et al finally say so themselves. The DOE/CAS stated in their report published in 1991 that the data Jones 1990 claims to have used was not available. FACT. The Jones team ********ted about their quality control.

I will remind you that they used the DOE/CAS report because it was and still is the most comprehensive record of long term temperatures in China. This report has been updated numerous times and remains the most comprehensive data available. Fact.


And you're still picking that nit, and still ignoring the facts. Typical denier.

I just gave the facts. Address them.

[rockoon]

Facts:

The DOE/CAS report was formally published in full in 1991—Wang et al. and Jones et al. used a pre-publication version of the report.

Jones et al. and Wang et al. consider the same 84 meteorological stations in China. Regarding 49 of those stations, the DOE/CAS report says, “station histories are not currently available” and “details regarding instrumentation, collection methods, changes in station location or observing times … are not known”

Jones was lead author of his paper.

Wang states "The discussion with Ms. Zeng last week in Beijing have re-affirmed that she used the hard copies of station histories to make sure that the selected stations for the study of urban warming in China have relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times over the study period (1954-1983)."

The “hard copies” Wang refers to as being used by Zeng could not have been found by the authors of the DOE/CAS report, one of whom is Zeng.

Finally, it should be noted that the DOE/CAS report was published as part of the Carbon Dioxide Research Program. The Chief Scientist of that program was Wang.

There, most of the facts. Electronic vs Written is moot. Zeng stated the data was not available in the DOE/CAS report but Wang says that Zeng had the data. To top it off, Wang was chief scientist of the program which got the DOE/CAS report published.

[CapelDodger]

The reason to stay lodged in the past being, the arguments against the science have demonstrably made the situation worse- because nothing was done about it when it was tractable. The idea is to avoid responsibility for pushing an irresponsible position; something I've noticed that this crowd excels at.

I don't think it's that rational, except for the cynical professionals. (Heck, if I was offered serious money I could do as good a job as they do, I have cynicism this long and was raised at the teat of of Sophistry, aka a Good School tuned to produce lawyers, politicians and - at the last resort - clerics. But I digress, and at the same time advertise :cool: . I wouldn't use my real name, though, not an any price. I value my good name above gold and diamonds.)

For some, such as Diamond and rackoon, it's a cult. They were caught up in it in at a vulnerable age - adolescence, roughly speaking, the target audience of all cults - and became Knowers of the Special Knowledge. While chumps like you and me just don't get it because we've fallen for lies or we're liars ourselves. Nothing we say can be can be considered in any other light because without the belief they've nothing to get up in the morning for.

McIntyre lies in the overlap between cynic and cultist; nobody would know who we was if he wasn't a prominent teat for cultists and Fox-style media, but I doubt he'd admit that's his motivation even to himself.

[Schneibster]

Where in this thread did I deny AGW? Your opinion is obvious from your choice of subject matter, and from your posting history. You show every sign of the skeptoid, and not a single one of the actual skeptic. You don't accept evidence that contradicts your conclusions, for starters. This thread would be a pretty good example of that.

The rest of this is obvious sophistry, and as such deserves no response. You have not responded to a single factual point with anything but sophistry; facts are therefore obviously immaterial to you. I will therefore not waste further time presenting them.

[mhaze]

Facts:

The DOE/CAS report was formally published in full in 1991—Wang et al. and Jones et al. used a pre-publication version of the report.

Jones et al. and Wang et al. consider the same 84 meteorological stations in China. Regarding 49 of those stations, the DOE/CAS report says, “station histories are not currently available” and “details regarding instrumentation, collection methods, changes in station location or observing times … are not known”

Jones was lead author of his paper.

Wang states "The discussion with Ms. Zeng last week in Beijing have re-affirmed that she used the hard copies of station histories to make sure that the selected stations for the study of urban warming in China have relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times over the study period (1954-1983)."

The “hard copies” Wang refers to as being used by Zeng could not have been found by the authors of the DOE/CAS report, one of whom is Zeng.

Finally, it should be noted that the DOE/CAS report was published as part of the Carbon Dioxide Research Program. The Chief Scientist of that program was Wang.

There, most of the facts. Electronic vs Written is moot. Zeng stated the data was not available in the DOE/CAS report but Wang says that Zeng had the data. To top it off, Wang was chief scientist of the program which got the DOE/CAS report published.

That is all correct as stated regarding the China data situation.

No one should defend this behavior.

[rockoon]

Your opinion is obvious from your choice of subject matter, and from your posting history. You show every sign of the skeptoid, and not a single one of the actual skeptic. You don't accept evidence that contradicts your conclusions, for starters. This thread would be a pretty good example of that.

The rest of this is obvious sophistry, and as such deserves no response. You have not responded to a single factual point with anything but sophistry; facts are therefore obviously immaterial to you. I will therefore not waste further time presenting them.

Translation:

"Oh crap Rockoon has facts and I cannot argue against them. Not only do I look stupid, now I feel stupid!"

[BobK]

heh heh

[mhaze]

For some, such as Diamond and rackoon, it's a cult. They were caught up in it in at a vulnerable age - adolescence, roughly speaking, the target audience of all cults - and became Knowers of the Special Knowledge.

:)

By Knowers of the Special Knowledge I assume you mean the core principle that Skepticism is a Good Thing?.

Maybe we could teach more adolescents that.

[CapelDodger]

:)

By Knowers of the Special Knowledge I assume you mean the core principle that Skepticism is a Good Thing?.

Maybe we could teach more adolescents that.


I mean nothing of the sort. The Special Knowledge, which blends into Special Insight, is every cult's USP. Conspiracy cults are just one example, and denialism is, for some, a conspiracy cult. Scepticism is absolutely not what a cultist practices.

Scepticism is best served by considering the whole picture and asking oneself : does this make sense? Cultists do quite the opposite, they focus ever more exquisitely on tiny fractions of the picture because that keeps the real world at bay. The world in which they are not special.

Being sceptical about AGW, as a non-cultist, is no different from solipsim. Which is utterly barren, by definition.

[CapelDodger]

That is all correct as stated regarding the China data situation.

No one should defend this behavior.

Viewing rockoon's presentation, as a sceptic, a few questions spring to mind. Why did Jones et al (why does Al always catch it from every direction?) lie back then in a manner which was so easily detectable? Why did nobody notice at the time? Why has McIntyre, he of M&M fame I assume, only spotted it now? It's not as if such climate reconstructions went unchallenged in 1991 and have gone unchallenged since. Much effort has gone into undermining Mann et al (Al just does the catering, give him a break); did nobody spend a few moments on Jones and discover this bombshell? If so, it's damned unprofessional, IMO.

You regard this presentation as correct, but aren't you the slightest bit sceptical? When someone says they had to use a Freedom of Information Act to get hold of some data, do you just take them on their word? Do you assume that they tried asking politely beforehand and were rebuffed? Or do you trust them when they say they did? Or only imply that they did?

The why is the big question; why did Jones and the long-suffering Al lie about their Chinese data, if they did? What was their motivation? The lie, if any, is so easily found out, as apparently demonstrated, but only fifteen years up the line. Don't you find that a bit odd?

The fixation of denialists on the past is not at all odd, the present and intervening period being so unwelcome to them. But 1991 was the present when the scientific work in question was presented. If it was fabricated, what prompted that? Other than a conspiracy?

[mhaze]

I mean nothing of the sort. The Special Knowledge, which blends into Special Insight, is every cult's USP. Conspiracy cults are just one example, and denialism is, for some, a conspiracy cult. Scepticism is absolutely not what a cultist practices.

Scepticism is best served by considering the whole picture and asking oneself : does this make sense? Cultists do quite the opposite, they focus ever more exquisitely on tiny fractions of the picture because that keeps the real world at bay. The world in which they are not special.

Being sceptical about AGW, as a non-cultist, is no different from solipsim. Which is utterly barren, by definition.

I certainly see your point but have some difficulty relating that to the subject of fraud in one particular scientific study. Further, the thread was just a report and an explanation of a possible issue of fraud.

[casebro]

Scepticism is best served by considering the whole picture and asking oneself : does this make sense?

I asked myself. The answer is "No. AGW does not make sense." So I looked for data. It still does not make sense.

Exactly when did I become a member of a cult?

[CapelDodger]

Where in this thread did I deny AGW?

Of course you don't. You just reject any amount of evidence as being absolute proof of AGW. As long as there's some nit to be picked and no confirmation that global warming isn't caused by death-rays from Mars you remain anchored in your comfort-zone.

Which is apparently in the past.

Why, in your opinion, did Jones tell lies back in 1990? Remarkably prescient ones given the last 17 years of extra data, don't you think? Coincidence is a weak argument.

[CapelDodger]

I asked myself. The answer is "No. AGW does not make sense." So I looked for data. It still does not make sense.

Exactly when did I become a member of a cult?


You' may well not be. You're likely a commoner breed, a wishful-thinker and all-round dickhead. A prole that no more looks for real science than could understand it when presented. AGW makes prefect sense, was predicted, and lo it came to be. And will continue to. Just you watch.

If you want to bring up "data" about a cooling-trend since 1998, there's another thread to do it in. This thread's about 1990 according to its title.

[mhaze]

You' may well not be. You're likely a commoner breed, a wishful-thinker and all-round dickhead. A prole that no more looks for real science than could understand it when presented. AGW makes prefect sense, was predicted, and lo it came to be. And will continue to. Just you watch.

If you want to bring up "data" about a cooling-trend since 1998, there's another thread to do it in. This thread's about 1990 according to its title.

CD, what is the point of the insults? By bringing them into this thread you defend Jones 1990. You are siding of an apparant liar. Not that the insults are valid in any civil conversation.

[David Rodale]

You just reject any amount of evidence as being absolute proof of AGW.


It does not exist.

[mhaze]

Which is apparently in the past.

Why, in your opinion, did Jones tell lies back in 1990? Remarkably prescient ones given the last 17 years of extra data, don't you think? Coincidence is a weak argument.

Only after recent FOI actions in did a list of the stations used in Jones et al 1990 become available in March 2007, after years of obstruction.

You are siding with Jones, and arguing for the merits of lying?

[casebro]

I sure don't see any skeptics, or even non-believers, nearly as rabid as CapelDogder. I don't understand why he is even on this skeptic's site. Trolling, I guess.

[Schneibster]

Looks like it's time for the list (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1976047#post1976047) again. I'll repeat varwoche's challenge: provide one peer reviewed study that opposes global warming to counter each one on the list. When you've done that, you can claim that global warming denial is a skeptical position. Until then, which is basically never, global warming denial is a conspiracy theory.

[mhaze]

I sure don't see any skeptics, or even non-believers, nearly as rabid as CapelDogder. I don't understand why he is even on this skeptic's site. Trolling, I guess.

Still it puzzles me why anyone - pro - anti - etc - would side with Jones et al.

I flat, 100% do not get it. Realclimate.org will not defend Jones.

Yeah, trolling perhaps is the only explanation.

[CapelDodger]

I sure don't see any skeptics, or even non-believers, nearly as rabid as CapelDogder.

Rabid? Moi? Have you not been treated to rockoon's shrieks of "liar" at all and sundry?

I don't understand why he is even on this skeptic's site. Trolling, I guess.

Doubtless there are many things you don't understand.

[CapelDodger]

CD, what is the point of the insults? By bringing them into this thread you defend Jones 1990. You are siding of an apparant liar. Not that the insults are valid in any civil conversation.

I calls 'em as I sees 'em. That's the way I was brung up. I'm not siding with anybody, but there are some I'm siding against.

[CapelDodger]

I certainly see your point but have some difficulty relating that to the subject of fraud in one particular scientific study. Further, the thread was just a report and an explanation of a possible issue of fraud.

Motivation is surely relevant when allegations of fraud are made. What's the motivation here? Jones is said to have risked his reputation as a scientist - and thus his career - in this case, so there must have been some strong motivation. According to McIntyre and Keenan the fraud is obvious, which Jones would have realised. Other scientists have produced climate reconstructions since 1990, as Jones would have expected, and they haven't revealed a fraud as they might well have done for all he knew at the time. If fraud was involved it was a risky one, and hoped-for return generally correlates with risk. So what could the motivation have been? I can't see one.

(If McIntyre is misrepresenting the matter, his motivation is obvious. The guy's only claim to fame is as a prominent AGW sceptic who gnaws on old statistical bones, and here he is doing it again for his fan-base. None of it has any impact on the actual warming that's been going on and continues, nor even addresses it.)

In the words of Marcus Tulius Cicero, Cui bono?

[my_wan]

Looks like it's time for the list (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1976047#post1976047) again. I'll repeat varwoche's challenge: provide one peer reviewed study that opposes global warming to counter each one on the list. When you've done that, you can claim that global warming denial is a skeptical position. Until then, which is basically never, global warming denial is a conspiracy theory.

How does anything except opinions differ in "the list (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1976047#post1976047)" from my criticism of your "obvious physical fact (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2719690#post2719690)"? The list is mostly just a list of "obvious physical fact"s. You also keep referring to it as "varwoche's challenge" but varwoche didn't mention "challenge". His only statements was;

Updated list of sources supporting AGW and/or severity of GW regardless of cause. new indicates the study is newly added to the list. agw indicates the study references anthropogenic warming.

So the challenge was something you invented after the fact and you want peer review to counter news releases and opinions. There is not even any denial of GW or even AGW from anybody you are asking this evidence from. I pointed out very clearly why even a small bias is important so to make your case answer my criticism here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2719690#post2719690).

[Schneibster]

my_wan, you got on my ignore list for denying obvious physical law once already, on a physics thread. I have absolutely not the slightest inclination to make an answer to someone who has already proven themselves impervious to facts. It's a complete waste of time.

[my_wan]

my_wan, you got on my ignore list for denying obvious physical law once already, on a physics thread. I have absolutely not the slightest inclination to make an answer to someone who has already proven themselves impervious to facts. It's a complete waste of time.
That physics thread would be here;
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76731
If anyone wants to second that opinion post it there.

By "obvious physical fact" do you mean that the "obvious physical fact" that GW is real is proof of AGW? It was after all AGW you that you specifically mentioned when using melting ice as proof.

[CapelDodger]

Rockoon has a very valid point.

That would be a new departure, but he actually regurgitates stuff he was fed by Steve McIntyre.

The issues we face over global warming is likely very real issues, alarmist notwithstanding. The degree to which my estimation of "very real" hinges very much on the science. When the science itself is so lopsided for political, budgetary, and career purposes ...

Is it? Was it so even back in 1990? What, for instance, were the political purposes back then? Or the career purposes? Who knew - except from the science - that global warming would be such an important issue this far up the line? After all, some people made fools of themselves over global cooling in the 70's, from what I hear. As for budgets, scientists in general were already concerned - because of the science, which is well-founded - even though theirr own non-climate oriented budgets were likely to suffer from a political concentration on climate. There was no obvious boost to the overall funding of scientific research. More money for climate research means less money for them.

... I must add a healthy dose of skepticism and add to the level of evidence required for action. When someone like Jones et al pulls such a crass stunt ...

If they did, why didn't scientists in other fields call them on it at the time?


...that essentially wastes years worth of effort and data we should all be pissed.

Even if Jones et al was fabricated, as allegedly revealed in 2007 by McIntyre et al, what deleterious effect did it have? What has been done that should not have been done, and what left undone that should have been done?


If you are really bent on curtailing human induced global warming why would you not be pissed at Jones et al dishonesty setting your evidence back years?

Have you noticed any effect of McIntyre's alleged outing of a fabrication? Have any decision-makers paid any attention at all? rockoon et al are not movers and shakers, let's face it.


Almost as bad for the science is the tactics used against dissenters.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
This guy is very likely wrong about his science but the tactics used against him and others are wrong for the science.

The reporting arm of the WSJ is quite well-regarded, but citing a WSJ opinion piece on AGW is inviting ridicule. Just to start on it (it's rather late over here) :

WSJ: There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change.

Claims by whom? Other journalists, I suspect.

WSJ: Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes.

Blamed by? Other journalists, perhaps?

WSJ: The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm ...

No mention of those who conflate clear scientific statements with "alarmism" in order to dismiss them by association.

I could go on (I've been known to) but the pillow beckons.

[Pragmatist]

That physics thread would be here;
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76731
If anyone wants to second that opinion post it there.


Don't forget the most informative bit of it, which got split:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76862

:D

[mhaze]

So the challenge was something you invented after the fact and you want peer review to counter news releases and opinions. There is not even any denial of GW or even AGW from anybody you are asking this evidence from.

That "there is no denial of GW or even AGW from anyone you are asking this evidence from" would lead one to wonder what exactly is the purpose in continued assertions in that direction; alternately if no purpose, then some meaning, or none at all. Certainly such things raise the noise level and lower the information content substantially.

[my_wan]

That "there is no denial of GW or even AGW from anyone you are asking this evidence from" would lead one to wonder what exactly is the purpose in continued assertions in that direction; alternately if no purpose, then some meaning, or none at all. Certainly such things raise the noise level and lower the information content substantially.

Yes that and the "obvious physical fact" of melting ice as proof of AGW. I was thinking it was something along these lines (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2420540&postcount=23);

Perhaps- I still see it as simply beating up on him, and I'm not proud of it. It's done, though.

Thanks Pragmatist.

However I must admit that in spite of many postings of yours I had to ask you directly to know this. Under the circumstances it wasn't a totally outrageous assumption.

[my_wan]

Don't forget the most informative bit of it, which got split:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76862

:D

Thanks Pragmatist. I looked for that on the "Abandon All Hope (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=58)" section and it only showed a single page. I assumed it was gone and didn't try the search function. Now I see the "Display Options".
:p

[rockoon]

Would you guys get off my thread, and especialy stop insulting people in it.

[my_wan]

That would be a new departure, but he actually regurgitates stuff he was fed by Steve McIntyre.

What do I care where he got the info or links.

Is it? Was it so even back in 1990? What, for instance, were the political purposes back then? Or the career purposes? Who knew - except from the science - that global warming would be such an important issue this far up the line? After all, some people made fools of themselves over global cooling in the 70's, from what I hear. As for budgets, scientists in general were already concerned - because of the science, which is well-founded - even though theirr own non-climate oriented budgets were likely to suffer from a political concentration on climate. There was no obvious boost to the overall funding of scientific research. More money for climate research means less money for them.

Before I answer that I must object to you implying that in my opinion the whole GW science was started or is some kind of conspiracy. I have specifically disavowed such crap even within the present situation and restricted my complaints to specific action of certain idiots. Scientist do what scientist do and made some postulates and got funding to study it. That's how GW science got started and properly so. The various motivations of people since are as varied as the individuals and almost universally well meaning. Some of the actions are no better than the "prayer study (http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-09/miracle-study.html)" still standing. The only difference being that unlike the prayer study GW is a real science in need of study. So to you question; Yes GW and AGW are real issues in need of unbiased data. Unless you disagree I would suggest not attempting to to hook me with implications you can distort to your will.

If they did, why didn't scientists in other fields call them on it at the time?

Scientists in other fields? You obviously know nothing about specializations in science. What would an astronomer have to say about a climatologist work? Scientist rarely even see reviewed work of scientist outside their field first hand. Even if this wasn't the case why would they question the claimed veracity of the data when the source of data is obfuscated. Again it seems as though you think some big conspiracy was required for this to happen even if it was just the climatologist. It doesn't. Faked and/or sloppy data is a common problem in all fields of science and is sometimes very hard to spot.

Even if Jones et al was fabricated, as allegedly revealed in 2007 by McIntyre et al, what deleterious effect did it have? What has been done that should not have been done, and what left undone that should have been done?
First my quote from earlier;
The evidence did not show fabrication. It showed Intentionally false claims about the quality of data. This followed by an attempt to hide the fact implying the possibility of stronger accusations, especially selective data. Also there was some counter data that was truncated not fabricated.

Is putting doubt on the for AGW not deleterious enough. Recall that AGW evidence does not depend on proving warming but on how fast it is warming. GW is a as Schneibster says an "obvious physical fact". We are dealing with fractions of degrees here. Biased data can have a huge effect. It's important unless you just want to believe it regardless of the science.




Have you noticed any effect of McIntyre's alleged outing of a fabrication? Have any decision-makers paid any attention at all? rockoon et al are not movers and shakers, let's face it.

Luckily your mostly right here but that does not justify the actions. Between this and other issues I've mentioned doubt has probably persisted longer than it should have. The science will eventually correct itself but this is an important issue to get it right quickly.

The reporting arm of the WSJ is quite well-regarded, but citing a WSJ opinion piece on AGW is inviting ridicule. Just to start on it (it's rather late over here) :

My quoting of that piece specifically dealt with issues of shifting review standards that keep these sorts of of opinions alive. If you want to was lying about his experiences then I will go elsewhere for for the evidence.

Claims by whom? Other journalists, I suspect.
Here you are using a quote from the cited article unrelated to the point I was making to to criticize me on the same grounds I am criticizing Schneibster. GW yes, AGW no. Although they do bring up the role of AGW here.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070619125716.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070619125716.htm)
You also seem to be implying that Richard Lindzen is a journalist. I might not be that impressed with his science but he is an atmospheric physicist at MIT.

Blamed by? Other journalists, perhaps?
Again you take a random statement from an opinion piece that is unrelated to the issue of review standards I took issue with to criticize. What does that have to do with the issues I expressed disgust over? Again you are implying that Richard Lindzen is a journalist.

No mention of those who conflate clear scientific statements with "alarmism" in order to dismiss them by association.
So your right. I'm not even upset about alarmism. I just want to be able to trust reviewed papers. What has that got to do with the issues I expressed about review standards? Using experiences related by someone in an opinion piece to support my concerns does not mean I agree with every inane statement in someone else's opinion.

I could go on (I've been known to) but the pillow beckons.
I don't mind you going on but please stick to the issues I actually expressed concern for. Producing random quotes from an opinion piece I cited to criticize does nothing to criticize the concerns I expressed. Do you think I wrote that article? Take issue with his claims of shifting review standards and you have something that actually pertains to my post. Otherwise you are just pumping out red herrings.

[a_unique_person]

What I'd love to see. M&M going over a years worth of papers by economists. That would keep them busy till they dropped from old age. Won't happen.

[a_unique_person]

If you look over M&M's critiques, they don't amount to a hill of beans. His comments on the IPCC report are just nit picking.

[mhaze]

Yes that and the "obvious physical fact" of melting ice as proof of AGW. I was thinking it was something along these lines (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2420540&postcount=23);


Some time ago Scneiber was arguing that the end effect of GW?AGW would be that "sea levels would rise by several meters, and hundreds of millions of people would die". I asked where exactly do you get that. Isn't it common knowledge that sea level increase is about 2mm per year? He said, "It's in the IPCC report". Well, I went and looked. And looked. And looked.

Actually it was a commonly quoted item from Hensen. But in the IPCC report I did find an appendix which detailed the "forecast" worst case situation for 1000 years into the future. That particular forecast does equate to the sea level rise Scneib mentioned.

So he stood on a thin reed of right, and without qualifying that statement by noting the 1000 year time frame, and in the context of the discussion, it was completely misleading.

Such things can be discussed and corrected or amplified. Trolling and flame baiting is intentional disruption of discussion. That's what we see in this thread.

And by the way, the IPCC report clearly notes very positive and good future scenaios, such as the A1T year 2100 future. There is NO reason for paying any attention to harbingers of "gloom and doom".

[mhaze]

Would you guys get off my thread, and especialy stop insulting people in it.

This is "Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology".

What part of that is insults?

[mhaze]

Is it? Was it so even back in 1990? What, for instance, were the political purposes back then? Or the career purposes? Who knew - except from the science - that global warming would be such an important issue this far up the line?


Your repeated attempts to marginalize the impact of fraud in science is fortunately, not the majority view anywhere I have ever been.

If it is a minority view, then it is a very disturbing minority view.

[my_wan]

Would you guys get off my thread, and especialy stop insulting people in it.

I have no desire to offend the OP poster and looked to see where we might have strayed from the OP or been insulting. I can't find either. Admittedly the the physics thread was off topic but it was the basis of a characterization. Instead of making an off topic issue of it I simply posted the link so people could judge for themselves. I even suggested people go there rather than make an issue of it here.

As far as the insults I don't feel I have been insulting nor been insulted. Everything I see that might be construed as insulting is a characterization of post that people here can read and judge for themselves.

My apologies if I have acted inappropriately. You are welcome to specify any complaints you have or ask me by name to leave the thread. I will honor such a request.

/back to topic

[CapelDodger]

Your repeated attempts to marginalize the impact of fraud in science is fortunately, not the majority view anywhere I have ever been.

If it is a minority view, then it is a very disturbing minority view.

You apparently accept as fact that fraud was practiced in this case. I remain sceptical, not least because the matter of motivation has not been addressed. I'm not going to take McIntyre and Keenan's presentation without a large pinch of salt - McIntyre for one has form, the other guy I never heard of before - but I'm a sceptic at heart anyway. With no obvious motivation, why the risky fraud? Cui bono?

As to the impact of fraud in science on science, it doesn't seem to have been that great given that science is in very good health. Science has outed its own frauds, but in this case it apparently took Steve McIntyre to do it. Doesn't that strike you as dubious?

[mhaze]

You apparently accept as fact that fraud was practiced in this case. I remain sceptical, not least because the matter of motivation has not been addressed. I'm not going to take McIntyre and Keenan's presentation without a large pinch of salt - McIntyre for one has form, the other guy I never heard of before - but I'm a sceptic at heart anyway. With no obvious motivation, why the risky fraud? Cui bono?

As to the impact of fraud in science on science, it doesn't seem to have been that great given that science is in very good health. Science has outed its own frauds, but in this case it apparently took Steve McIntyre to do it. Doesn't that strike you as dubious?

There is no reason for you to try to put words in my mouth or misquote me.

You will recall we had a discussion several months ago about the China data, and you shrugged it off quite confident that scientists had "standards" that took care of these problems. Actually at the time I thought you were probably right.

You were wrong, as the new data shows.

I have no reason to speculate on people's motives whatsoever (re motive for fraud). This is not a legal case of fraud, not the same at all.

[David Rodale]

You apparently accept as fact that fraud was practiced in this case. I remain sceptical, not least because the matter of motivation has not been addressed. I'm not going to take McIntyre and Keenan's presentation without a large pinch of salt - McIntyre for one has form, the other guy I never heard of before - but I'm a sceptic at heart anyway. With no obvious motivation, why the risky fraud? Cui bono?

As to the impact of fraud in science on science, it doesn't seem to have been that great given that science is in very good health. Science has outed its own frauds, but in this case it apparently took Steve McIntyre to do it. Doesn't that strike you as dubious?

Dubious? Without the Piltdown Mann hockey stick, AGW amounts to nothing less than a competition amongst an incalculable number of beneficiaries from a bottomless pit of public money.

[CapelDodger]

What do I care where he got the info or links.

Nothing at all, obviously, but don't give the credit to rockoon. If he ever makes a good point he will deserve credit for it.

Before I answer that I must object to you implying that in my opinion the whole GW science was started or is some kind of conspiracy.

That's not what I was doing. I was presenting you with the conundrum. You have "specifically disavowed such crap", which I've got and is fine by me, but what except such crap do you have to put in its place?

Scientist do what scientist do and made some postulates and got funding to study it. That's how GW science got started and properly so.

AGW science got started because Arrhenius had tenure, as did Angstrom after him.

Scientists come up with all sorts of postulates, many of which do not get funding. Which is probably a good thing, given that the funding available for scientific research is a pretty fixed quantity. Funding for climate research was drawn from that pool back in 1990, which meant less for other fields of research. Why didn't scientists in those other fields shoot down AGW, if it was vulnerable and to do so would at least improve their own chances of a cut of the pot?

The various motivations of people since are as varied as the individuals and almost universally well meaning.

That doesn't address the conundrum. What, if not "all that crap", might have been Jones's motivation? It can't be funding, obviously, since he'd already got funding to do the study in the first place and the results would be thrown to the pack of wolves eager to get their own share of future funding. Politics is out, since the outcome - fraudulent or not - was not at all welcome in that sphere. What, however speculative, can you suggest as motivation in this specific case?

[my_wan]

Even courts do not require motives when the act is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The OP does not represent actual fraud. It was misrepresentation of data followed by an intentional attempts at covering that fact. The after the fact actions were IMO worse than the actual misrepresentation. As I have stated this is not an unusual event.
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/assetid/39095;jsessionid=baabrc6bzcJVEh
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/92prom.html

[CapelDodger]

Dubious? Without the Piltdown Mann hockey stick, AGW amounts to nothing less than a competition amongst an incalculable number of beneficiaries from a bottomless pit of public money.

Piltdown Man. So sad. I didn't expect that mhaze would fall for that one, and sho' nuff he didn't. He's no fool, is mhaze. Could have been a lawyer given competent career advice back when.

[David Rodale]

Scientists come up with all sorts of postulates, many of which do not get funding. Which is probably a good thing, given that the funding available for scientific research is a pretty fixed quantity. Funding for climate research was drawn from that pool back in 1990, which meant less for other fields of research. Why didn't scientists in those other fields shoot down AGW, if it was vulnerable and to do so would at least improve their own chances of a cut of the pot?


In the U.S. Hansen et al were able to get the politicians ear, and that's what gets funding.

Scientists want money, scientists scare the public. Public pressure is put on government, government doles out money from the public treasury. Scientists get the money, scientists want more money and the cycle continues.

Once it gets to the point of getting the money, keeping and increasing said money needs justification. What better way than to keep the public scared?

[David Rodale]

Piltdown Man. So sad. I didn't expect that mhaze would fall for that one, and sho' nuff he didn't. He's no fool, is mhaze. Could have been a lawyer given competent career advice back when.

Schneibster posted what he considers to be "unequivocal" evidence for AGW and catastrophic global climate, in 50-100 years of course. So, I chose one in the list.

I took the challenge.
Let's review this one:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10404255

First let's knock out a very simple part of the “story”, climate models.
http://www.uni-giessen.de/physik/theorie/theorie3/publications/PRL-2002-1.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12097020&dopt=Abstract
Complete article available upon request.

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20070430_StroeveGRL.html

http://www.climatescience.org.nz/assets/200767148340.WelchNiwa70607.pdf
Oops, it's not yet “peer reviewed” so it must be a hoax.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch08.pdf
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch09.pdf
Both of the above are from IPCC. Read it in it's entirety, and while you're at it, do a search in the articles for seemingly insignificant words such as uncertainty, uncertain, unable, estimate. Climate models are unreliable, yet are heavily relied upon for climate forecasting.

This abstract underscores the influence of vegetation on climate, which IPCC does not discuss.
http://ppg.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/31/3/261


There are many more.

Secondly, and this doesn't need “peer review” Opinions, predictions, scaremongering and shrilling is not evidence. The “story” claims cannot be falsified hence they are invalid and thusly classified as junk science. There is nothing in the article at all worthy of falsifying. Much of the same can be found from articles in so-called peer reviewed journals during the 70's for global cooling. Please study 'null hypothesis' and the basic scientific method.

A snippet from the “challenge” article:
"There's almost no aspect of life in the developing countries that these predictions don't undermine - the ability to grow food, the ability to have a safe sanitation system, the availability of water. I think that for hundreds of millions of people for whom getting through the day is already a struggle, this is going to push them over the precipice."
Real world observations from New Scientist 2002:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2811



I suspect many of the other articles in the “challenge” have much of the same nonsensical unsubstantiated opinion.


----------------------------------------------------

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article
Our friends at RealClimate say Gore got it right.....so which is it?



It was gleefully posted work done by Solanki et al stating solar activity doesn't account for the last thirty years of 20th century warming, but what wasn't mentioned is this one by Solanki et al:
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/2004ja010964.pdf
This suggests
that effects induced by cosmic rays may affect the long-term
terrestrial climate. The positive correlation between the
geomagnetic dipole moment and the temperature reconstructions
provides further evidence favoring the cosmic
ray influence on the terrestrial climate. However, the present
analysis cannot determine the relative importance of (total
and UV) solar irradiance and cosmic ray flux since the
irradiance may show a long-term trend that does not exactly
follow the averaged sunspot number.
What was not noted as well is Solanki et al used the Mann hockey stick as their reference for Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction. A bit odd to say the least.

------------------------------------------------------------

It was stated RealClimate “skewered” Svensmark's SKY experiment, but in reality they did nothing of the sort. Certainly the groupies chiming in with the usual 'bravo!' fluff may give them comfort, but the entire blog entry can be summed up in five words from the author: “I think and “I don't think.....it's there I assure you. The rest is meaningless redundancy. What does matter is until SKY, cosmic ray influence on climate was nearly all theoretical and largely unknown. Now we have an experiment testing the hypothesis, something AGW has yet to demonstrate. If RC doesn't like it, they should devise their own experiment to disprove Svensmark et al rather than the usual demagoguery and ad hom attacks they are so well known for.

[CapelDodger]

There is no reason for you to try to put words in my mouth or misquote me.

You do apparently accept that Jones was engaged in a deliberate fraud. Look at the words that have emerged from your keyboard. What other interpretation could be made from them?

You will recall we had a discussion several months ago about the China data, and you shrugged it off quite confident that scientists had "standards" that took care of these problems. Actually at the time I thought you were probably right.

Actually, no, I don't recall the exchange.

You were wrong, as the new data shows.

As were you, if you accept that this new data does in fact show that. Which apparently you do.


I have no reason to speculate on people's motives whatsoever (re motive for fraud). This is not a legal case of fraud, not the same at all.

You have at least one reason to speculate : I've asked you to. This is not a court of law. This is a JREF forum. my_wen could take note of the same fact. We're not lawyers. Whatever our sins we've not sunk so low.

(Hi, Cleopatra. I know you're watching us :) .)

[a_unique_person]

In the U.S. Hansen et al were able to get the politicians ear, and that's what gets funding.

Scientists want money, scientists scare the public. Public pressure is put on government, government doles out money from the public treasury. Scientists get the money, scientists want more money and the cycle continues.

Once it gets to the point of getting the money, keeping and increasing said money needs justification. What better way than to keep the public scared?

Have you ever thought it may just be that it's exactly how the scientists claim it is? Scientists discover global warming may be a real concern for the global community, scientists say it would be advisable to research global warming and it's effects because the effects could have serious implications for the global community. It sounds plausible to me.

[mhaze]

You do apparently accept that Jones was engaged in a deliberate fraud. Look at the words that have emerged from your keyboard. What other interpretation could be made from them?
Actually, no, I don't recall the exchange.
As were you, if you accept that this new data does in fact show that. Which apparently you do. You have at least one reason to speculate : I've asked you to.

What you've said over and over in this thread clearly indicates that you have not read and understood the references provided. Therefore, you would like to debate the matter based on some general knowledge and opinion. Sorry, I can't follow down that road. Try someone else.

I prefer to work with original source materials and reach conclusions from them. Sometimes that does mean getting it wrong, but it does not mean that I may get it wrong from the specifics, while you get it right from opinion.

As for speculation as to motives of someone accused of something serious, you have got to be kidding. These are actual, live human beings we are talking about here. They are worthy of respect, irrespective of what errors may have occurred.

So are people on this forum worthy of respect.

[mhaze]

Have you ever thought it may just be that it's exactly how the scientists claim it is? Scientists discover global warming may be a real concern for the global community, scientists say it would be advisable to research global warming and it's effects because the effects could have serious implications for the global community. It sounds plausible to me.

Really? How about the "distinguished panel" in Canada that recently advised the government there that to meet their Kyoto goals by 2050 they would have to impose a carbon emissions tax rising to $250 per ton, or approximately $4500 per person. In taxes.

The concern of your scientists once in the hand of politicians led to that. But guess what? What does that $4500 per person proposed carbon tax get you, AUP? Is it not like 0.05 C estimated reduction in global temperature if all Kyoto nations followed suit?

I would only make note that the debacle of the above two paragraphs - your advocacy, people you agree with in there - has no relation to an action and decision set capable of producing the future A1T scenario of the IPCC. Worth thinking over, isn't it?

[a_unique_person]

Schneibster posted what he considers to be "unequivocal" evidence for AGW and catastrophic global climate, in 50-100 years of course. So, I chose one in the list.

I took the challenge.
Let's review this one:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10404255

First let's knock out a very simple part of the “story”, climate models.
http://www.uni-giessen.de/physik/theorie/theorie3/publications/PRL-2002-1.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12097020&dopt=Abstract
Complete article available upon request.

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20070430_StroeveGRL.html

http://www.climatescience.org.nz/assets/200767148340.WelchNiwa70607.pdf
Oops, it's not yet “peer reviewed” so it must be a hoax.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch08.pdf
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch09.pdf
Both of the above are from IPCC. Read it in it's entirety, and while you're at it, do a search in the articles for seemingly insignificant words such as uncertainty, uncertain, unable, estimate. Climate models are unreliable, yet are heavily relied upon for climate forecasting.

This abstract underscores the influence of vegetation on climate, which IPCC does not discuss.
http://ppg.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/31/3/261


There are many more.

Secondly, and this doesn't need “peer review” Opinions, predictions, scaremongering and shrilling is not evidence. The “story” claims cannot be falsified hence they are invalid and thusly classified as junk science. There is nothing in the article at all worthy of falsifying. Much of the same can be found from articles in so-called peer reviewed journals during the 70's for global cooling. Please study 'null hypothesis' and the basic scientific method.

A snippet from the “challenge” article:

Real world observations from New Scientist 2002:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2811



I suspect many of the other articles in the “challenge” have much of the same nonsensical unsubstantiated opinion.


----------------------------------------------------

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article
Our friends at RealClimate say Gore got it right.....so which is it?



It was gleefully posted work done by Solanki et al stating solar activity doesn't account for the last thirty years of 20th century warming, but what wasn't mentioned is this one by Solanki et al:
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/2004ja010964.pdf (http://cc.oulu.fi/%7Eusoskin/personal/2004ja010964.pdf)

What was not noted as well is Solanki et al used the Mann hockey stick as their reference for Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction. A bit odd to say the least.

------------------------------------------------------------

It was stated RealClimate “skewered” Svensmark's SKY experiment, but in reality they did nothing of the sort. Certainly the groupies chiming in with the usual 'bravo!' fluff may give them comfort, but the entire blog entry can be summed up in five words from the author: “I think and “I don't think.....it's there I assure you. The rest is meaningless redundancy. What does matter is until SKY, cosmic ray influence on climate was nearly all theoretical and largely unknown. Now we have an experiment testing the hypothesis, something AGW has yet to demonstrate. If RC doesn't like it, they should devise their own experiment to disprove Svensmark et al rather than the usual demagoguery and ad hom attacks they are so well known for.

I have seen several references to Dr Jim Renwick and admissions he has made, they have all been paraphrasing what they claim he said. Do you have an actual reference to the statments he made.

Climate models have never claimed to be able to get the exact predictions right, but we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we know it is increasing in concentration, and we know the predicted feedback mechanisms are working. That's the nature of science, you will never have the exact answer, you have to go with the best you have got. To just say the models aren't perfect, therefore we should just not try to get some isight into what is happening, is bloody minded, wilful ignorance. As it is, the models seem to be amazingly accurate in the predictions to date. Hansen was pretty well spot on with his prediction, for example, with more primitive models/hardware than we have today.

[CapelDodger]

In the U.S. Hansen et al were able to get the politicians ear, and that's what gets funding.[quote]

Why were they able to get the average politician's ear? In the UK the Thatcher regime embraced AGW as a justification for nuclear energy (with the simplistic Great Power staus that goes with it) while at the same time extolling the Great Car Culture as an exemplar of progress. That was one seriously disfunctional regime.

In the US, Bush was elected as President almost two terms ago, and the Cheney-Rove regime has not been guided by concerns about AGW.

[quote]Scientists want money, scientists scare the public.

Science scares the proles (simple arithmetic scares many of them), scientists crave the good opinion of their peers. Present and future.

Public pressure is put on government, government doles out money from the public treasury. Scientists get the money, scientists want more money and the cycle continues.

Where's the evidence of public pressure stirred up by Jones, Hansen, the IPCC, et al? If a scientist wants to get money for research the first and obvious recourse is to present it as defence-related. President Crater :) tried the strategic argument and was a one-termer.


Once it gets to the point of getting the money, keeping and increasing said money needs justification. What better way than to keep the public scared?

The proles have become concerned about AGW because they can see what's happening around them. That's not presentastion, it's experience, which trumps everything else.

The Cheney-Rove position of "more research is required" has indeed chanelled extra funding into the AGW field, but only as a political expedient that staves off doing anything about it.

[Harpoon]

... What, however speculative, can you suggest as motivation in this specific case?

Hubris.

[rockoon]

I have no desire to offend the OP poster and looked to see where we might have strayed from the OP or been insulting.


I should have been more explicit.

The people trying to turn this into a debate about a different topic should go make their own thread, and should stop casting insults when they cannot respond to questions. They know who they are and they do it all the time.

They've ruined many threads already and now apparently have ruined this one too.

[a_unique_person]

Really? How about the "distinguished panel" in Canada that recently advised the government there that to meet their Kyoto goals by 2050 they would have to impose a carbon emissions tax rising to $250 per ton, or approximately $4500 per person. In taxes.

The concern of your scientists once in the hand of politicians led to that. But guess what? What does that $4500 per person proposed carbon tax get you, AUP? Is it not like 0.05 C estimated reduction in global temperature if all Kyoto nations followed suit?

I would only make note that the debacle of the above two paragraphs - your advocacy, people you agree with in there - has no relation to an action and decision set capable of producing the future A1T scenario of the IPCC. Worth thinking over, isn't it?

You are assuming, I am guessing, that everyone keeps producing the same amount of CO2 that they are producing now. That's the whole point, if they use less they pay less. There is a lot that can be done that will reduce the production of CO2. Kyoto was only ever supposed to be about the creation of a model system that would then be available for real usage when the initial Kyoto period was over, about 2012 IIRC, which would also have incorporated other countries such as China and India. I don't know how many times people have had this explained to them, I can only guess they just don't want to know, or the people that spead such misinformation have succeeded.

[mhaze]

You are assuming, I am guessing, that everyone keeps producing the same amount of CO2 that they are producing now. That's the whole point, if they use less they pay less. There is a lot that can be done that will reduce the production of CO2. Kyoto was only ever supposed to be about the creation of a model system that would then be available for real usage when the initial Kyoto period was over, about 2012 IIRC, which would also have incorporated other countries such as China and India. I don't know how many times people have had this explained to them, I can only guess they just don't want to know, or the people that spead such misinformation have succeeded.

You are quite wrong; I would be happy to discuss this, but in deference to Rockoon's request to keep this thread focused I shall not. But I will start another thread on the subject of economics, Kyoto and carbon credits. For those who are not aware of it, economics is a science. And various people can attempt to get it moved to the conspiracy forum, or bring up
da List

[a_unique_person]

Economics is a science?

Ha, ha, ha. Hey, it's not April 1st. :confused:

[mhaze]

Economics is a science?

Ha, ha, ha. Hey, it's not April 1st. :confused:

Yeah.

which is why I prefaced my comment with

For those who are not aware of it, economics is a science

[my_wan]

Nothing at all, obviously, but don't give the credit to rockoon. If he ever makes a good point he will deserve credit for it.
There are many unoriginal issues I would argue fervently for. I neither give nor take brownie points for originality. Only for substance. This remains true no matter what my debate history with that person is. I've even given Schneibster kudos not long ago.

That's not what I was doing. I was presenting you with the conundrum. You have "specifically disavowed such crap", which I've got and is fine by me, but what except such crap do you have to put in its place?
Why must it be replaced with anything? Maybe he was just lazy. Perhaps he he didn't want his hard work marginalized just because the data wasn't as clean as he would have liked. It would be silly to claim he was trying to increase funding for GW in general.

AGW science got started because Arrhenius had tenure, as did Angstrom after him.
Science tends to be iconoclastic. It is often a strength and a weakness. So what's new?

Scientists come up with all sorts of postulates, many of which do not get funding. Which is probably a good thing, given that the funding available for scientific research is a pretty fixed quantity. Funding for climate research was drawn from that pool back in 1990, which meant less for other fields of research. Why didn't scientists in those other fields shoot down AGW, if it was vulnerable and to do so would at least improve their own chances of a cut of the pot?
So you are presuming that scientist pour over the work outside their field and poke holes to protect their fields funding share? Now their is a CT for you!! Scientist rarely if ever even read original papers outside their field and never review it. Those statements also presume that there was holes to shoot in the paper without information that was intentionally unavailable. Your claim seems to follow the logic that if this paper misrepresented data which later had an effect then claims of misrepresentation must necessarily claim a conspiracy to produce said effects. Weird.

That doesn't address the conundrum. What, if not "all that crap", might have been Jones's motivation? It can't be funding, obviously, since he'd already got funding to do the study in the first place and the results would be thrown to the pack of wolves eager to get their own share of future funding. Politics is out, since the outcome - fraudulent or not - was not at all welcome in that sphere. What, however speculative, can you suggest as motivation in this specific case?
Ugh.. Again your "conundrum" still assumes misrepresentation -> effect requires misrepresentation to intend said effect. Perhaps if they were psychics. Your "pack of wolves" also assumes a CT between fields when in fact they are busy feasting on data within their own fields. I suggest the same range of motivations that lead to a wide range of misrepresentations in science. You can look more closely here;
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/92prom.html
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/assetid/39095;jsessionid=baabrc6bzcJVEh

[mhaze]

Your claim seems to follow the logic that if this paper misrepresented data which later had an effect then claims of misrepresentation must necessarily claim a conspiracy to produce said effects. Weird.


Ugh.. Again your "conundrum" still assumes misrepresentation -> effect requires misrepresentation to intend said effect. Perhaps if they were psychics. Your "pack of wolves" also assumes a CT between fields when in fact they are busy feasting on data within their own fields. I suggest the same range of motivations that lead to a wide range of misrepresentations in science. You can look more closely here;
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/92prom.html
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/assetid/39095;jsessionid=baabrc6bzcJVEh

Here is the direct quote from Jones et. al.
The stations were selected on the basis of station history: we chose those with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times.

It is outrageously untrue, especially given the 17 years of stalling, obfuscating, finally concluded with the data being FORCED TO BE RELEASED BY A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT.

Because of the FOI, now we know what Jones’ was hiding when he refused to release his data for all those years.

[mhaze]

The esteemed climate scientist, Hans von Storch appears to have been hit by this issue.

Storch 2004. et. al. (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679?etoc) is affected by the Jones data problem. And many other studies. The following is a summary of a talk in July 8, 2005 by Hans von Storch:

He argued that the climate debate is constrained by a concern for “evil” skeptics, hopes for a successful Kyoto process, the putative infallibility of the IPCC, the idea that any theoretical failure threatens the authority of climate science in general, and the fact that many reject any statement supporting the climate change skeptics. Such constraints undermine climate science in particular, but also damage the social institution of science by eroding trust. Dr. von Storch called for more counseling from the social sciences, a decrease in the power of alarmists, and the engagement of climate skeptics in constructive dialogue.
Smart guy. Got Brains. Certified degree style brains.

[my_wan]

Here is the direct quote from Jones et. al.The stations were selected on the basis of station history: we chose those with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times.
It is outrageously untrue, especially given the 17 years of stalling, obfuscating, finally concluded with the data being FORCED TO BE RELEASED BY A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT.

Because of the FOI, now we know what Jones’ was hiding when he refused to release his data for all those years.

Yes which is exactly why I'm taking the side of the argument that they did misrepresent data. The data was real but the veracity of the data was lied about. If they had released the stations used in the study up front this debate would have been a non event.

As you noted I said
Your (meaning CapelDodger) claim seems to follow the logic that if this paper misrepresented data which later had an effect then claims of misrepresentation must necessarily claim a conspiracy to produce said effects.
This still stands. Jones et. al. didn't need to be conspiring to create a GW scare. I'm sure they believed GW is scary which helped them rational the misrepresentation. The actual after the fact "effects" were unpredictable for them at the time. They only needed the personal petty little motivation that go with all other examples of science fraud. The necessity of using FOIA only shows that he didn't want to get caught. If he knew or sought the attention or "effects" this paper was going to have do you think he would have risked his professional status on such a silly lie. He was just riding a bandwagon at the time and got swept up in the controversy.

[a_unique_person]

The esteemed climate scientist, Hans von Storch appears to have been hit by this issue.

Storch 2004. et. al. (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679?etoc) is affected by the Jones data problem. And many other studies. The following is a summary of a talk in July 8, 2005 by Hans von Storch:
He argued that the climate debate is constrained by a concern for “evil” skeptics, hopes for a successful Kyoto process, the putative infallibility of the IPCC, the idea that any theoretical failure threatens the authority of climate science in general, and the fact that many reject any statement supporting the climate change skeptics. Such constraints undermine climate science in particular, but also damage the social institution of science by eroding trust. Dr. von Storch called for more counseling from the social sciences, a decrease in the power of alarmists, and the engagement of climate skeptics in constructive dialogue.
Smart guy. Got Brains. Certified degree style brains.

I think it's like telling scientists to have a dialogue with creationists. They regard people like McIntyre as idiots. Read the self serving comments form McIntyre about his reviews of the TAR4, then read their responses. Much of his comments have to do with his ignorance of the science, so they have to spell it out for him.

[mhaze]

Yes which is exactly why I'm taking the side of the argument that they did misrepresent data. The data was real but the veracity of the data was lied about. If they had released the stations used in the study up front this debate would have been a non event.

As you noted I said

This still stands. Jones et. al. didn't need to be conspiring to create a GW scare. I'm sure they believed GW is scary which helped them rational the misrepresentation. The actual after the fact "effects" were unpredictable for them at the time. They only needed the personal petty little motivation that go with all other examples of science fraud. The necessity of using FOIA only shows that he didn't want to get caught. If he knew or sought the attention or "effects" this paper was going to have do you think he would have risked his professional status on such a silly lie. He was just riding a bandwagon at the time and got swept up in the controversy.

This is substantially different because of the way that politicians are trying to make decisions based on it all. Was that clear in 1990? Gore and others were asserting in 1992 that "the debate was over".

Conspiracy isn't necessary. Just strong hints in the right direction, the media and the politicians pick it up and exaggerate it 100x.

A small rudder will turn a big boat.

[a_unique_person]

Mistaken Assumption No. 6: If only enough problems can be found, global warming will go away
This is really two mistaken assumptions in one. That there is so little redundancy that throwing out a few dodgy met. stations will seriously affect the mean, and that evidence for global warming is exclusively tied to the land station data. Neither of those things are true. It has been estimated that the mean anomaly in the Northern hemisphere at the monthly scale only has around 60 degrees of freedom - that is, 60 well-place stations would be sufficient to give a reasonable estimate of the large scale month to month changes. Currently, although they are not necessarily ideally placed, there are thousands of stations - many times more than would be theoretically necessary. The second error is obvious from the fact that the recent warming is seen in the oceans, the atmosphere, in Arctic sea ice retreat, in glacier recession, earlier springs, reduced snow cover etc., so even if all met stations were contaminated (which they aren't), global warming would still be "unequivocal". Since many of the participants in the latest effort appear to really want this assumption to be true, pointing out that it doesn't really follow might be a disincentive, but hopefully they won't let that detail damp their enthusiasm...








http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/no-man-is-an-urban-heat-island/#more-454

[mhaze]

I think it's like telling scientists to have a dialogue with creationists. They regard people like McIntyre as idiots. Read the self serving comments form McIntyre about his reviews of the TAR4, then read their responses. Much of his comments have to do with his ignorance of the science, so they have to spell it out for him.

Huh? does this have to do with Jones--> Storch?

[mhaze]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/no-man-is-an-urban-heat-island/#more-454

Yes I have read that thread.

And 1 am not disagreeing all together with the logic. They are saying Jones does not unravel the whole bill of string.

But a question. Have not you found the threads at RC basically full of "yesmen" while those at CA were all over more balanced?

[a_unique_person]

CA is full of yesmen, from what I could tell.

[my_wan]

This is substantially different because of the way that politicians are trying to make decisions based on it all. Was that clear in 1990? Gore and others were asserting in 1992 that "the debate was over".

Conspiracy isn't necessary. Just strong hints in the right direction, the media and the politicians pick it up and exaggerate it 100x.

A small rudder will turn a big boat.

Yes but the science goes way back to the 19th century. The models and mechanisms were slowly evolving with some back and forth data. Gores characterization of the data at the time was something Gore did for his own reasons. It was one of those "effects" that Jones et al could never have anticipated.

For a very good detailed description of the history and evolution of climatology up until the 80s read this site.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
I'm still trying to get it all read.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

[rockoon]

mhaze - on this conspiracy you envision - do you think that it is primarily:

A) Composed of hundreds or thousands of people all working together towards an official goal (general conscious collusion)

B) A lot of small-group conspiracies that together have an emergent effect (the unconscious collusion of consciously colluding groups)

C) A lot of individuals who do not consciously collude with anyone (general unconscious collusion)

D) None of the above (please explain)

Keep in mind that there is a very diverse set of players here.. scientists.. organizations.. politicians.. governments.. editors.. reviewers..

I am fairly certain that (A) cannot exist here. It is inconcievable.

[David Rodale]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/no-man-is-an-urban-heat-island/#more-454

How RC plays the game:
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/07/02/climate-science-responds-to-real-climates-web-posting-of-july-2-2007/

How folks assume RC is the 'Authority' and everything they post is truth is puzzling.

[mhaze]

How RC plays the game:
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/07/02/climate-science-responds-to-real-climates-web-posting-of-july-2-2007/

How folks assume RC is the 'Authority' and everything they post is truth is puzzling.

Refuting the RC article “No man is an (Urban Heat) Island” (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/no-man-is-an-urban-heat-island/#more-454)

Somebody smarter than me beat me to it!

Roger Pielke Sr. is another -
Smart guy. Got Brains. Certified degree style brains.

[CapelDodger]

What you've said over and over in this thread clearly indicates that you have not read and understood the references provided. Therefore, you would like to debate the matter based on some general knowledge and opinion. Sorry, I can't follow down that road. Try someone else.

I've read the links in the OP and McIntyre's piece, but not the actual Jones et al paper or the other original material they refer to.

I prefer to work with original source materials and reach conclusions from them. Sometimes that does mean getting it wrong, but it does not mean that I may get it wrong from the specifics, while you get it right from opinion.

I haven't gone through the original source materials, I'm afraid I don't have that level of dedication. I got tired just reading all through McIntyre's piece.

As for speculation as to motives of someone accused of something serious, you have got to be kidding. These are actual, live human beings we are talking about here. They are worthy of respect, irrespective of what errors may have occurred.

Live human beings do have motivations for what they do, it's not disrespectful to suggest that. The more serious the offence, and the more likely they are to get caught at it, the more interesting the question of motivation is. "Fraud" is not a mistake. It's a deliberate act, done for a deliberate purpose. my_wan has suggested laziness coupled with an assumption that it wouldn't be detectable, and maybe so. I've seen examples of that, although not so public.

So are people on this forum worthy of respect.

Indeed. I'll depend on you to point this out to rockoon the next time he calls someone a liar. You've been a bit lax on that in the past, not that I'm one to criticise :) .

[mhaze]

mhaze - on this conspiracy you envision - do you think that it is primarily:

A) Composed of hundreds or thousands of people all working together towards an official goal (general conscious collusion)

B) A lot of small-group conspiracies that together have an emergent effect (the unconscious collusion of consciously colluding groups)

C) A lot of individuals who do not consciously collude with anyone (general unconscious collusion)

D) None of the above (please explain)

Keep in mind that there is a very diverse set of players here.. scientists.. organizations.. politicians.. governments.. editors.. reviewers..

I am fairly certain that (A) cannot exist here. It is inconcievable.

That is a good question. I am not sure that the word conspiracy works. To describe what is going on we need to go to the social sciences. I'm tempted to get real boring and quote refs...naw

Why do people not wise up to the Sliding Ten Year Forecast of Doom?

Mass hallucination is a common explanation for mass UFO (http://www.answers.com/topic/unidentified-flying-object-1) sightings, appearances of the Virgin Mary (http://www.answers.com/topic/marian-apparition), and other paranormal (http://www.answers.com/topic/paranormal-4) phenomena. Maybe it applies here?

We are seeing all kinds of stuff that is global warming. Even increases in the cap population blamed on it. These people are serious. There should at least be some arm of the Gore/IPCC/Hansen/RC groups standing up and saying "NO, this is not what we meant to say".

But, they do not. Curious. So it's got to be the Skeptics, right?
Right. So there we have it don't we?

And then you are a Denier.

[CapelDodger]

Why must it be replaced with anything? Maybe he was just lazy. Perhaps he he didn't want his hard work marginalized just because the data wasn't as clean as he would have liked.

But this alleged fraud would marginalise his whole career. His good name would be dragged through the mud, as it's being here, bringing into question all the work he's ever done, and for what?


Science tends to be iconoclastic. It is often a strength and a weakness. So what's new?

Science is very seldom iconoclastic. Arrhenius's suggestion that human society could influence global climate is an example, but one that was soon put to sleep by Angstrom. Mistakenly, as it turns out, but that's the way it is in science; extraordinary (in the contemporary context) claims demand extraordinary evidence. That doesn't alter the fact that the science of AGW started, essentially, with Arrhenius. Not with the postulates of late-20thCE scientists who got funding to study them - the point I was responding to.


So you are presuming that scientist pour over the work outside their field and poke holes to protect their fields funding share? Now their is a CT for you!! Scientist rarely if ever even read original papers outside their field and never review it.

Are you suggesting that scientists that find their own field of study is being marginalised in favour of another aren't going to look at the flavour-of-the-day hyper-critically? Scientists are only human.


Those statements also presume that there was holes to shoot in the paper without information that was intentionally unavailable.

The very fact that is was unavailable is a hole in the paper, and one that is made much of by McIntyre. Why wouldn't scientists do the same thing, and much sooner? If the data proved to be intentionally unavailable, well, we can all draw our own conclusions from that. Deliberate fraud, not worth wasting money on that basis, give it my team instead.

Your claim seems to follow the logic that if this paper misrepresented data which later had an effect then claims of misrepresentation must necessarily claim a conspiracy to produce said effects. Weird.

Sorry, you lost me there.

[CapelDodger]

Why do people not wise up to the Sliding Ten Year Forecast of Doom?

You're polluting rockoon's thread with this. There's no "Doom" in a climate reconstruction, which is, as I understand it, what the Jones et al paper was about. Nothing in there about carbon taxes either. The thread is about the paper never being checked until its legs were pried open against great resistance.

[Harpoon]

Congrats, Capel Dodger. 7,000 posts! We ought to get together and distill you a present.

[mhaze]

Portman saw the problem in Jones et. al. and (politely) published a refutation in 1993.


http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&issn=1520-0442&volume=006&issue=12&page=2298

A detailed study of urban bias in surface temperatures of China's northern plains is described. Temperatures of climatological surface stations were examined using a statistical rank-score procedure that allows screening of the data without knowledge of the station history information. Time series found to exhibit large potential discontinuities (i.e., those introduced as a result of nonclimatic factors such as observation schedule changes, instrument replacements, and station moves) were excluded from further analysis.
further
It is suggested that despite past efforts to remove the effects of the urban beat islands from this and other large-scale, land-surface datasets, large urban warming biases may still remain.

[my_wan]

Yes not unusual for any published paper especially with datasets of that nature.
Note the summation;
It is suggested that despite past efforts to remove the effects of the urban beat islands from this and other large-scale, land-surface datasets, large urban warming biases may still remain.

He didn't nor had any reason to suspect that Jones et al intentionally overstated their data. He just pointed out "despite past efforts to remove the effects" they may remain. GW science is messy stuff. The statistics is as complex as it gets anywhere.

My blood still boils over what Jones et al did but trying to tie it in as an intentional attempt to produce the history that occur after the fact is not very honest either.

[mhaze]

Yes not unusual for any published paper especially with datasets of that nature.
Note the summation;


He didn't nor had any reason to suspect that Jones et al intentionally overstated their data. He just pointed out "despite past efforts to remove the effects" they may remain. GW science is messy stuff. The statistics is as complex as it gets anywhere.

My blood still boils over what Jones et al did but trying to tie it in as an intentional attempt to produce the history that occur after the fact is not very honest either.

I agree. I'm still puzzling over some of the presumptions of statistics in these climate guys' work. Not at all sure that they have it right. Not sure I can figure out if they have it right. Not sure if anybody can.

But Jones was bothering me about six months ago for the simple reason he got Chinese society all together wrong; his idea of rural and urban was incorrect and that invalidated his work IMHO. There may be other stuff, I was just looking at China (as was Portland).

[a_unique_person]

Why not just try a different country, that is mostly desert and uninhabited, like Australia? UHI should not be much of a factor.

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi

Hmmm, looks pretty much the same to me.

[rockoon]

Why not just try a different country, that is mostly desert and uninhabited, like Australia?


The Jones 1990 paper did consider eastern Australia.


UHI should not be much of a factor.


This is an assumption. If science simply accepted that this assumption is true then Jones 1990 would never have been written.

Also, there are several issues involved with UHI and it is why the quality control methods are important. First is that most of the existing surface records are taken from populated areas, even in australia. Second is that over the years stations have been moved, instrumentation has been changed, and the time of observation has been tweaked.

These changes make it difficult to draw conclusions between the data collected prior to the changes and the data collected after the changes. Even small changes to location can have a large impact (relative to the presumed rate of global warming) on the recorded temperature.

In regards to the changes in collection methods, I believe the core question is do those changes result in discontinuities distributed normaly about the mean or is there a bias in those discontinuities.

Jones 1990 was trying to show that the difference between normally distributed discontinuities and biased ones could only manifest itself as no more than a 0.05C error in his gridded regional averages which he had produced in Jones 1986.


http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi

Hmmm, looks pretty much the same to me.

First, your link defaults to the rainfall measurements in Australia. I don't that thats what you intended.

Second, the temperature graphs arent based on a study of the UHI effect. Unless I am missing something, there is also no reason to believe that the UHI effect is being accounted for in the data.

[a_unique_person]

The average temperature is there, in the drop down list.

Try this.

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/trendmaps.cgi?variable=tmean&region=aus&season=0112&period=1950

90% of Australians live on the South East Coast. The temperature gradient has nothing to do with population distribution.

[rockoon]

90% of Australians live on the South East Coast. The temperature gradient has nothing to do with population distribution.

You seem to be saying that Jones, as well as many other scientists, are wasting their time trying to compensate for the UHI effect because it is imaginary. :confused:

You seem to also be saying that the modifications to the temperature record to compensate for the UHI effect should not be made, even though that is precisely what climate scientists have done. :confused:

Do you really want to go there?

[a_unique_person]

I'm not saying it's imaginary, but, as Jones discovered, it's not significant compared to the changes that are happening. Look at the map of Australia, it's as big as the USA, with less than one tenth of the population, mostly living in the South East coastal areas. UHI is not going to be a big factory, but warming is happening here the same as the USA.

[rockoon]

I'm not saying it's imaginary, but, as Jones discovered, it's not significant compared to the changes that are happening.


This isnt quite right. Jones had concluded that it is not significant to his gridded averages. You cannot extrapolate that to the extent you seem to want to. Further, we must be skeptical of the Jones 1990 conclusions because these guys are known to have used highly dubious data while misrepresenting its quality in this very study.


Look at the map of Australia, it's as big as the USA, with less than one tenth of the population, mostly living in the South East coastal areas.


I am not sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying that a large majority of the surface record for Australia is not taken in populated areas? Your conclusion would require that to be the case, but I am skeptical that such a claim would stand scrutiny.

Do you understand that the map shown is an interpolation of the averages of sparse measurements (which may have been 'adjusted'), and may or may not reflect what real measurements would have determined had they been taken comprehensively?

Further, Karl 1988 determined that the UHI effect in the United States DID exagerate specific temperature data as much as 0.1C in regions with populations of only 10,000.


UHI is not going to be a big factory, but warming is happening here the same as the USA.

You cannot simply declare that UHI wont be a factor based on a map and expect to be taken seriously. Maps and graphs based on estimations, interpolations, averages, and adjustments do not necessarily tell a scientific story, and drawing conclusions from such things is dubious at best. Jones knew that, which is why he put effort into Jones 1990, to determine what the error margin could be on his gridded averages based on the UHI effect.

And as you are well aware, the local climate of Australia is not representative of the rest of the world. The term 'epic' has been used to describe your drought. When comparing Australia to just about anywhere else, "one of these things is not like the others" and that thing is Australia.

[a_unique_person]

http://news.csu.edu.au/uploads/images/AusMapPop_web.jpg

Australian population densities.

http://www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/pubs/RP/1999-2000/2000rp09.htm

The distribution of weather stations.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/datasets/datasets.shtml

[mhaze]

http://news.csu.edu.au/uploads/images/AusMapPop_web.jpg

Australian population densities.

http://www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/pubs/RP/1999-2000/2000rp09.htm

The distribution of weather stations.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/datasets/datasets.shtml

You will note the stations are very sparse in the west-central-north areas.

Also that "corrections" have been applied, and that no "raw data" is available at least on these pages.

Non withstanding that, I like the graphs and data available from this source. It would be easy enough to email one of the people maintaining the databases and ask a question about the nature of the corrections. But no doubt the methods for their corrections have been published somewhere.

Being suspicious about Jones does not mean being suspicious about all land based stations does it? It would seem that one could prove up by working with the raw data, one of several theories about UHI.

But just asserting "there is no problem", particularly on data that may have already had a UHI correction applied, makes no sense.

[CapelDodger]

Hubris.

Word :cool: .

[CapelDodger]

Congrats, Capel Dodger. 7,000 posts! We ought to get together and distill you a present.

An Honorary Language Award would suffice. Failing that, the biggest cat-fur poncho in history.

It all started when I decided to get a job, which turned out to be a really boring way to make a living ...

[CapelDodger]

Why not just try a different country, that is mostly desert and uninhabited, like Australia? UHI should not be much of a factor.

I dug into some of McIntyre's stuff, and I recall noticing that there were doubts about some stations in Queensland, so I'm afraid Australia is no refuge. Far from it, in practical terms

I'll say it again, get yourself and yours back to Old South Wales. Here, we don't get extremes of drought or flood. You're on a sinking ship out there.

[mhaze]

I dug into some of McIntyre's stuff, and I recall noticing that there were doubts about some stations in Queensland, so I'm afraid Australia is no refuge. Far from it, in practical terms

I'll say it again, get yourself and yours back to Old South Wales. Here, we don't get extremes of drought or flood. You're on a sinking ship out there.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1502

I think you may be referring to this which is also :confused: more good'ol'Jones!

[CapelDodger]

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1502

I think you may be referring to this which is also :confused: more good'ol'Jones!

That Jones, what a bastard. Bringing the Welsh into even greater disrepute than they already suffer, without justification. There's good evidence that Jones's paternal grandfather changed his name from "Windsor" during the Great War, but you won't find that on the InterWebNet. It's so unfair.

[a_unique_person]

I dug into some of McIntyre's stuff, and I recall noticing that there were doubts about some stations in Queensland, so I'm afraid Australia is no refuge. Far from it, in practical terms

I'll say it again, get yourself and yours back to Old South Wales. Here, we don't get extremes of drought or flood. You're on a sinking ship out there.

Well, if we're talking about Queensland....

[mhaze]

It's probably worked into the UHI models somewhere.

Basic planet reflectivity is just that, but urban areas (1) reflect (2) emit hot gas from cars, air conditioned buildings, etc. (2) would seem to be very substantial for major urban areas.

Just subtracting a temperature component from "Urban" to "correct for UHI", is it obvious that the "hot gas emission" is properly taken care of?

It's a bit hard to see how it would be possible to do that properly and have it make sense....

[CapelDodger]

Well, if we're talking about Queensland....

Queensland has an unsavoury reputation; I once heard it referred to as the easternmost province of South Africa, back in the apartheid era. Mind you, that came from an Australian ex-hippy.

[CapelDodger]

It's probably worked into the UHI models somewhere.

Basic planet reflectivity is just that, but urban areas (1) reflect (2) emit hot gas from cars, air conditioned buildings, etc. (2) would seem to be very substantial for major urban areas.

Just subtracting a temperature component from "Urban" to "correct for UHI", is it obvious that the "hot gas emission" is properly taken care of?

It's a bit hard to see how it would be possible to do that properly and have it make sense....

I don't think the "hot gas" element is particularly significant unless you're standing close to an AC outlet, and weather stations are sited to avoid that sort of thing. In China specifically, mass car-ownership and AC are recent phaenomena, certainly post-1990. Transport for the masses was bicycle-based back then, and absent AC people dressed appropriately for the season.

The accuracy of adjustments for the UHI effect can be roughly checked by comparing readings on windy days with those on still days, and they do seem to work. Trends indicated by rural stations alone can also be compared with trends from urban stations alone, and again these match up. Then there's comparison with satellite-derived trends, which again suggest that the measured global warming trend is not an artefact of urbanisation. Or of fraud, for that matter.

[mhaze]

I don't think the "hot gas" element is particularly significant unless you're standing close to an AC outlet, and weather stations are sited to avoid that sort of thing. In China specifically, mass car-ownership and AC are recent phaenomena, certainly post-1990. Transport for the masses was bicycle-based back then, and absent AC people dressed appropriately for the season.

The accuracy of adjustments for the UHI effect can be roughly checked by comparing readings on windy days with those on still days, and they do seem to work. Trends indicated by rural stations alone can also be compared with trends from urban stations alone, and again these match up. Then there's comparison with satellite-derived trends, which again suggest that the measured global warming trend is not an artefact of urbanisation. Or of fraud, for that matter.

Beats me. I think to figure it out you actually have to dig into how and why those adjustments are made. Here is central park (http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CENTRAL_PARK_TEMPERATURE_COMPARISON.pdf), about a hundred years (by Joe D'Aleo. Discussed on climateaudit.org).

A general comment would be just give me the raw data please. Y'all can keep the adjustments.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CENTRAL_PARK_TEMPERATURE_COMPARISON.pdf

[CapelDodger]

Beats me. I think to figure it out you actually have to dig into how and why those adjustments are made. Here is central park (http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CENTRAL_PARK_TEMPERATURE_COMPARISON.pdf), about a hundred years (by Joe D'Aleo. Discussed on climateaudit.org).

Something I discovered only recently, from Discovery Channel, is that Central Park is entirely artificial. I think it very unlikely that it can provide a useful example of anything to do with climate science. Town planning, yes, and landscape gardening on a medium scale, with a major budget (relative to the cost of labour, which predominated in such projects until quite recently).

Central Park is beautiful. The guy that designed it is to be lauded, and the politicians that obtained the funding deserve respect.



A general comment would be just give me the raw data please. Y'all can keep the adjustments.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CENTRAL_PARK_TEMPERATURE_COMPARISON.pdf

I may have missed a major upheaval; has New York suddenly become typical? Of anything? A Clinton v Giuliani face-off woud give that impression, perhaps, but that's still very speculative.

[mhaze]

Central Park is indeed a nice place, but has

GW scare tactics caused it to jump the shark?:rolleyes: (http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/03/global_warming_14.html)

[CapelDodger]

Central Park is indeed a nice place, but has

GW scare tactics caused it to jump the shark?:rolleyes: (http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/03/global_warming_14.html)

I followed the link in expectation of illumination, but all I got was "jump the shark" in quotes. WTF does "jump the shark" mean?

There was a picture of Al Gore, but that doesn't press any of my buttons. I appreciate that it does for some folk, but not for me. Also some stuff about Hummers being more eco-friendly than Prius hybrids. I haven't bothered to go into details on that, given that these are not Hummers being driven by people who have any intention of serving in Iraq. Or any expectation of it, even if the draft were to be re-introduced. These are the kind of Hummer-drivers who like to be identified with something macho, but not have to experience it. People like the US President back in the day, who liked to fly the planes but never expected to be shot at while doing so. Daddy's influence precluded that.

So anyway, just to indulge a fading Boomer on this side of the Pond, what does "jump the shark" mean?

[CapelDodger]

And only then did I click the link to [UK] Channel 4's "devastating expose" which, as you are surely aware, means the Swindlers. Do you really want to associate yourself with Moonbattery as a credible source? That won't do your own credibility any favours.

[mhaze]

you are taking this seriously.:rolleyes:

Jump the shark is from some TV show where in one episode the guy is waterskiing and there is a shark in the water, so he has to literally jump the shark or... run into it and fell in the water next to one angry shack...

character was I think "the Fonz" the show I am not sure of.

Anyway the phrase came to mean the point in popularity (of a show) after which it was bound to slide down because it could not again reach such a moment.

[CapelDodger]

you are taking this seriously.:rolleyes:

I took your link seriously. Did I miss the irony? It's been known to happen.

Jump the shark is from some TV show where in one episode the guy is waterskiing and there is a shark in the water, so he has to literally jump the shark or... run into it and fell in the water next to one angry shack...

character was I think "the Fonz" the show I am not sure of.

Anyway the phrase came to mean the point in popularity (of a show) after which it was bound to slide down because it could not again reach such a moment.

OK, no good reason why I missed that reference.

So, do you agree with Moonbattery that global warming has peaked as a popular concern? The Moonbattery position seems to be that Al Gore should be mentioned often enough that his opinion becomes as insubstantial as the Fonz's, and that somehow that matters. Which is obviously bollocks. But backed up by references to the Swindlers of ill-repute. Come on, you're no fool, what are you setting me up for here?

[mhaze]

No setup. I just thought it was funny.

[Harpoon]

I believe "There is no shark" may be a more appropriate quote from the entertainment sector.

You may remember the sheriff on that tourist island going to the mayor about "Jaws" lurking in their waters.

Recognizing the danger would hurt commerce.

Well, that only happens in the movies.;)

[Harpoon]

I believe "There is no shark" may be a more appropriate quote from the entertainment sector.

You may remember the sheriff on that tourist island going to the mayor about "Jaws" lurking in their waters.

Recognizing the danger would hurt commerce.

Well, that only happens in the movies.;)


Pardon the mental numbness. Third graf should read: Recognizing the danger would hurt commerce, the mayor denies the existence of the shark.

Glub!

[mhaze]

http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=1727

Just as an example of some of the problems with these ground based thermometers that are used by Astute Certified Brains Scientists for their publications, partly on the basis of which we are asked to believe there is or is not heating from "Urban Heat Islands (UHI)", partly that being the basis for adjustments in the temperature records, yada yada yada....

The Fort Morgan site (http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=1727) is absolutely ridiculous. Duhhhh.......

[mhaze]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_142244696a2ae649df.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6997)


Looks like a spot a dog would move into in part of the day and move out of in another part of the day. Let's see - we're trying for what level of accuracy here, something like 0.1C?