Jones 1990 often cited, never checked?

[rockoon]

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

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by rockoon

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?

[rockoon]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

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

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;

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

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

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by mhaze

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/...es/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]

Originally Posted by rockoon

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/...es/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]

Originally Posted by rockoon

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]

Originally Posted by fanboy

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 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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

Originally Posted by rockoon

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by varwoche

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?

Originally Posted by varwoche

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.

Originally Posted by varwoche

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]

Originally Posted by rockoon

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by geni

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by mhaze

It's important not to over generalize.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by mhaze

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?

Originally Posted by mhaze

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.

Originally Posted by mhaze

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.

Originally Posted by mhaze

said no, there were no records prior to 1990.

No, there were no electronic records prior to 1990.

Originally Posted by mhaze

And Jones has published that Zeng gave him records prior to 1990.

Written records. Not electronic.

Originally Posted by mhaze

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.

Originally Posted by mhaze

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.

Originally Posted by mhaze

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]

Originally Posted by Schneibster

Indeed.

Then what are we arguing about?

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

Originally Posted by Schneibster

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.

Originally Posted by Schneibster

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.

Originally Posted by Schneibster

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]

Originally Posted by geni

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?

Originally Posted by geni

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?

Originally Posted by geni

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.

Originally Posted by geni

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.

Originally Posted by geni

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?

Originally Posted by geni

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

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

Originally Posted by geni

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?

Originally Posted by geni

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]

Originally Posted by rockoon

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.

Quote:

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?

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

Quote:

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

Vioxx GI Outcomes Research study

Quote:

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).

Quote:

No obstruction then?

As I said it's a wierd field.

Quote:

..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.

Quote:

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by geni

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"?

Originally Posted by geni

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?

Originally Posted by geni

Vioxx GI Outcomes Research study

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

Originally Posted by geni

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.

Originally Posted by geni

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?

Originally Posted by geni

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?

Originally Posted by geni

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]

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by 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 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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Schneibster

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.

Originally Posted by Schneibster

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:C...e_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:I...emperature.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]

Originally Posted by rockoon

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]

Originally Posted by varwoche

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 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 out of 84 Chinese weather stations. 35 is all that is said to exist. Years are 1954-1983.

Data used in the Jones et al 1990 paper

Zeng. NDP-039 Two long term climatic databases of the PRC (leads to pdf)

[Schneibster]

Originally Posted by rockoon

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

Uh huh. They published YOUR favorite paper, too, or did you forget?

Originally Posted by rockoon

A little bit religious for you?

Ad hom much?

Originally Posted by rockoon

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.

Originally Posted by rockoon

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?

Originally Posted by rockoon

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.

Originally Posted by rockoon

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?

Originally Posted by rockoon

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]

Originally Posted by varwoche

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]

Originally Posted by Schneibster

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.

Originally Posted by Schneibster

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.

Originally Posted by Schneibster

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.

Originally Posted by Schneibster

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

Originally Posted by Schneibster

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.

Originally Posted by Schneibster

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]

Originally Posted by rockoon

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

my head is reeling...

[rockoon]

Originally Posted by mhaze

Keenan's draft copy

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...