130 thoughts on “Petr Chylek Reaction to Climategate emails.”

1. Thanks for posting this, Lucia.

2. The CRU Zip letters indicate that there has been an effort to exaggerate the rate of warming

   What’s the evidence for that? Besides, Chylek says that HadCRUT and GISS are unaffected. I don’t see how the rate of warming could be exaggerated without altering the temperature record.

3. Excellent… I have to hope that there are many scientists who are breathing a sigh of relief, hoping to go back to honest work in a less politicized climate. There will always be the convinced core that pushes the issue to the end and ignores all dissenting data as bad science, but I really think scientists will be able to recover.

   In the long run, this will be good for science.

4. Simon: I imagine he’s referring to the Hockey Stick, which has been discredited by the raw data.

5. Simon–
   Thanks. I’ll reword. I was referring to this “there was a perceived need to “prove” that the current global average temperature is higher than it was at any other time in recent history”.

6. Pingback: Petr Chylek Response to Climategate « the Air Vent

7. If you drill down through all the proxies and models and claims what truly stands out is the virtual absence of any actual experimental science. If the S-B blackbody derived gross climate forcings are accurate for planet earth (and can this be proven experimentally?), the compositions and interactions of these forcings need to be teased apart. This can only be done with theory and experiment. It is simply impossible to accurately conduct this task with data sets that were never designed to capture information for this task. Get thee to a laboratory.

8. Does the integrity of the databases stand up in view of the Willis and Ken analyses?

9. “So what comes next? Let us stop making unjustified claims and exaggerated projections about the future even if the editors of some eminent journals are just waiting to publish them. Let us admit that our understanding of the climate is less perfect than we have tried to make the public believe.”

   Meanwhile in Copenhagen…
   “Copenhagen climate conference opens to dire warnings”
   http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hYxzVPlN6_qyl3jRCWg5OwWxvJAA

10. Thanks for posting. Sensible summary and reasonable recommendations.

11. Lucia,

    I spent a few hours browsing through the climategate e-mails, using various key words (try “reconstruction” for example). It is quite interesting to see the interactions amongst the dendro “clique”. In particular, one can really “feel” how Michael Mann has bullied his way through to the “elimination” of the MWP, despite the reservations of many of his colleagues (Briffa, Cook, and others). There’s the mounting star using his influence to gain more prestige and status, and impose his views. He was always the most agressive towards anything “skeptical”, even way before ClimateAudit and RC. He actually used the skeptics to promote his views, arguing that it was “dangerous” to create any doubt that his colder MWP may not be statistically supported by the evidence.

    Those e-mails, despite those who claim that there’s nothing there, are indeed a treasure chest. I hope one day a historian will take the time to reconstruct this fascinating history!

12. RE Mann the bully….it was also my impression that he was the, uh, least well behaved of all, and yes, the biggest ‘bully’ of the bunch. Does not cast him in a good light at all.

13. As it often happens, it takes someone with eloquence (and field credibility) to state the obvious in an acceptable form. 🙂

14. Thanks for this. Here’s hoping that this is a beginning/expansion of a call to reform the climate science community.

15. Most interesting is the 3:1 response in favor of Dr. Chylek’s comments. It will probably be a relief for many to be able to do science someday soon without having to worry about offending alarmist mullahs. There may be a lot of innovative climate science still in the closet.

    I would love to see the text of one-fourth who disagreed to see if it contains the kind of vitriolic assault on heresy we have come to know and love.

16. Here is a response to that email which was forwarded to me. The author is described as “in the climate community (although retired)”.

    Thank you for this, but I must object to the science in two of your points.

    1. climate scientists intent on “proving” that recent warming exceeds previous warming in the past thousand years or so are on shaky scientific ground.

    While it would be good to have more proxies especially in the SH, we now have ample evidence that the so-called MWP was not as warm as now. Take for example Moberg’s low frequency (no tree rings) proxy reproduction, and Esper’s all-tree-ring study, or any one of several others who weren’t part of the East Anglia folks. They differ a bit on how cold the LIA was, but all agree (after Esper fixed his errors) that MWP was cooler than now. Add to this Lonnie Thompson’s mountain glacier work and you have very convincing evidence on this point. Also, consider that Lonnie can’t reproduce some of hiw corings from 25 years ago because the glaciers have melted back to far and his estimate that most of the mountain glaciers in the Andees and elsewhere will be gone in about 30 years.
    This means bed rock instead of ice. Had that been the case during the MWP, Lonnie’s ice cores would have only gone back about 800 years or so, but they go back often over 10,000 yrs and there is little evidence in them for the MWP melting. So how can you impugn all this work that has nothing to do with East Anglia?

    2. Computer models just can’t reproduce the climate adequately.

    While improvements always need to be made especially in clouds, the models have made impressive predictions over and over again and sometimes in the face of strong criticism as when satellite temperatures seemed to show no warming while the models were. No one tuned or twiddled knobs to get the “right” answer. Instead modelers kept looking at the physics and thermodynamics trying to see if there was an error. They found none. Then we got the answer–the reduction of the satellite observations was wrong, not the models. I could go on, but [in a review] which you have I cite a few of the
    predictions one done before the data was even published. To me the
    criticism of computer models is leveled by people not really all the familiar with what the models can do. Here I note that I’ve often wondered why most critics of global warming due to humans are over 65. Perhaps this too is that our honored elder statesmen recall models in their day that were less impressive. Still the models run around 1990, certainly far less capable than those today, made several predictions of global warming that 20 years later have turned out to be right on. Consider this, while some continue to criticize the models, they are daily used by hundreds of scientists to increase their understanding of the climate. In fact, data without model simulations to interpret them are far less useful because you have to surmise what the data means. Finally computer models are so good that they are increasingly used to help design observing programs and
    satellite design. So how can you call models into question?

    Thus, I cannot agree with your letter. Keep your eye on the ball, it’s warming and it’s us.

    [deleted]

    PS I just read today that my friend Roger Pielke Sr. is now agreeing that human-caused global warming is supported by too much evidence to be ignored.

17. Took you guys long enough-look how long ago I noticed this:

    http://devoidofnulls.wordpress.com/2009/12/06/a-climate-scientist-speaks-out/

18. This is a historic letter for all of us scientists. I can’t imagine who would feel the need to disagree with the points in the letter. We understand so little about clouds, precip, the carbon cycle not adding up, feed back loops, our data sets are not perfectly robust or have homogenization problems. We only have 30 years worth of cloud cover data. This is not time to push drastic policy. This is time to do good normal science. Lest put those hypotheses through the ringers, and expand our climate data. The Modelers and the Instrumentalist need to tolerate each other better.

19. “Roger Pielke Sr. is now agreeing that human-caused global warming is supported by too much evidence to be ignored.”

    He’s been saying that for years.

    Andrew

20. Molon:

    PS I just read today that my friend Roger Pielke Sr. is now agreeing that human-caused global warming is supported by too much evidence to be ignored.

    Now? Do you think this is news? Roger Pielke Sr. has been saying this for years and years and years.

    Thus, I cannot agree with your letter. Keep your eye on the ball, it’s warming and it’s us.

    Do you think the possibilities of a) exaggerated claims and b) the truth of AGW are mutually exclusive possibilities? I don’t. I think both can readily co-exist and do.

21. Andrew– That was way to short to catch attention. You need to add a paragraph! People don’t click through links unless it’s really compelling.

22. I didn’t write that response. It was forwarded to me. The sender removed identifying information.

23. Very encouraging to see that level of affirmation. Here is my perspective as an ‘observer’:

    Chairman Pachauri

    Re: Steps to restore scientific integrity to IPCC climate reviews and policies.

    Claims of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, are seriously questioned by a substantial portion of scientists and major portion of the public. See below. ClimateGate documents exposed serious corruption of climate science.

    As a scientist and engineer, I ask you to redress these problems. Please insist on the following principles and actions in all IPCC documents.

    1) Absolute transparency and public access for ALL data, methods, adjustments, and actual modeling software or demonstrated objective reproducibility for all climate models relied on for public policy.

    2) Require the IPCC be subject to every country’s “Freedom of
    Information” legislation to robustly test the science and expose any errors or corruption of data, methods or models.

    3) Require objective science with a level playing field including for ALL climate theories. Require remedial funding of minority positions to redress the serious distortion of objective climate science.

    4) Include ALL natural and anthropogenic influences including ocean oscillations, complex solar influences, and galactic cosmic rays ignored in previous IPCC reports.

    5) Require robust validation of all climate models by independent statistical professionals compared with the default hypothesis of long term climate trends. (Currently NO IPCC models are professionally validated, and the null hypothesis is more accurate than IPCC projections.)

    6) Explicitly quantify and exclude the Urban Heat Island effect.
    (McKitrick & Michaels, 2007 show that statistically about half the 20th century temperature rise is due to the Urban Heat Island effect.)

    7) Require minority reports that include data and models excluded by IPCC’s majority.
    See Climate Change Reconsidered by Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change 2009 report 880 pg. http://www.nipccreport.org
    which summarizes numerous scientific reports ignored in previous IPCC reports, and much newer material.

    8) Require audits to ensure EVERY IPCC model and method abides by ALL the principles of scientific forecasting. (IPCC currently violates 72 scientific forecasting principles.
    See: *Green, K. C., Armstrong, J. S., & Soon, W. (2009). Validity of climate change forecasting for public policy decision making. International Journal of Forecasting, 25, 826-832.
    http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=78&Itemid=130)

    9) Require comparison of effects and benefits of McKitrick’s T3 Tax
    (Tropical Tropospheric Temperature) and climate adaptation versus cap and trade. Reject cap and trade as it is subject to political manipulation and fraud.

    10) Insist on control of IPCC, UN and any climate agreement by
    democratically elected representatives, NOT unelected bureaucrats with no restraint.

    Please aggressively lead IPCC into robust transparent fair science and policy.

24. David L. Hagen (Comment#27235)

    McKitrick & Michaels, 2007 show that statistically about half the 20th century temperature rise is due to the Urban Heat Island effect.

    Oh really? how is that working over the oceans then? Please explain. I’m very much looking forward to your account of the UHI effect upon the sea surface temperatures – or upon the satellite observations for that matter.

    I ask you for this clarification as a performance artiste, pigeon-fancier and occasional Morris Dancer.

25. Molon—
    Ahhh… Well the writer seems a big confused about some facts.

26. McKitrick and Michaels (2007): “We conclude that the data contamination likely leads to an overstatement of actual trends over land. Using the regression model to filter the extraneous, nonclimatic effects reduces the estimated 1980-2002 global average temperature trend over land by about half.”

27. Lucia/Molon – I think the author *might* be Chick Keller (formerly of LANL) who is an outspoken activist in the Los Alamos community. I agree with Lucia, the response seems a bit confused.

28. Simon Evans:

    Perhaps you can refute Hagan’s claim by citing the infamous Wang paper with those missing stations and fabricated data that proved there was no UHI. It must be correct because the IPCC cited it and there are wagons still circled around Wang. Who needs actual data when you have The Truth, eh?

    Also, given that the reported temp set is an average why would it matter if SSTs were not subject to UHI? You can inflate an average by inflating some numbers in the set rather than all.

29. It may be that what is confusing – apart from my ambiguous introduction of the email – is that in his two itemized points the author first restates the Chylek point he is challenging.

30. George Tobin (Comment#27241) December 9th, 2009 at 2:51 pm

    Simon Evans:

    Perhaps you can refute Hagan’s claim by citing the infamous Wang paper…

    Perhaps you’re the sort of person who thinks that an accusation of fraud is good enough proof of fraud. I’m not. Wang has been exonerated by the inquiry – if you have issues with that take them up with someone, but simply repeating the accusation stinks. I challenged Keenan (elsewhere) as to whether he was claiming the data was fabricated and he chose to avoid answering that question – so maybe go have a chat with him and get your story clear before proceeding with your smears.

    I’m waiting to see whether you have the integrity to respond to my demonstrating the falseness of your statement on the ‘Alaska…’ thread. I don’t make much of people who lack integrity themselves accusing others of fraud.

31. On the subject of Michael Mann being a bully, a few weeks ago I wrote a rebuttal to an RC post, defending Soon / Balunas 2003, which pointed out that many proxies do show a strong MWP. Mann managed to bully other climate scientists to denounce the otherwise valid paper, and the pressure led to three of the editors of the paper to resign, rather than have their careers ruined by being associated with a journal that “let one throught”, “one” being a paper that didn’t tow the party line.

    My post is here.

    Thanks

    Mike.

32. OT, but interesting downward blip in arctic ice extent past couple of days. Perhaps all the, uh, warmed air from a certain Scandinavian city… 😉

33. The Moberg, Esper and Thompson bodies of work are effectively critiqued by Steve M. at Climate Audit.
    ‘Nuff said there.
    BTW, I’m 39. not 65.

34. As a lukewarmner, Chylek hasn’t been subject to the abuse and threats that those at CRU have been. I would like so see how he responds to a sustained, anti-scientific, campaign of public derision and humiliation.

35. Keenan is pretty clear on Wang’s fraud here:
    http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5620.htm

36. Simon Evans (Comment#27237)-the claim erroneously miss-cites the McKitrick and Michaels paper as saying half of all the warming in the twentieth century is urban heat island effect. None of these statements or their parts are correct. Firstly, the paper is not urban heat island only but any potential socioeconomic signals in the data as distinct from climatic. Secondly the study doesn’t cover the entire twentieth century but only the last roughly thirty years. Last, it does not look at the ocean, only land.

    The accurate summary of their conclusions would be more like: half of the land warming in the last thirty years can be attributed to socioeconomic biases.

    This works out to more like 25% of the recent warming.

37. Andrew,

    I know that – I’ve read the paper. I think it’s very much open to question anyway, but this isn’t a thread on that paper in particular. It’s a bit depressing when people cite papers as if they were undisputed gospel, and even more depressing when they then misrepresent the scope/conclusions of such papers.

38. Fred Nieuwenhuis (Comment#27250) December 9th, 2009 at 3:37 pm

    Keenan is pretty clear on Wang’s fraud here:

    Yes, Fred, Keenan is clear on the accusation he is making! – is that enough for you? You’re satisfied to point out that someone has made an accusation without giving any apparent respect to whatever the truth may or may not be?

    Here is the dialogue I had with Keenan, in which I make clear the misrepresentations he engaged in (scroll through comments) :-

    http://scientific-misconduct.blogspot.com/2009/05/allegations-of-fraud-at-albany-wang.html#comments

39. Bugs “As a lukewarmner, Chylek hasn’t been subject to the abuse and threats that those at CRU have been. ” That is correct he has been subject to a more sustained and personal attack than the CRU crew have even in their worse paranoid nightmares.

40. If there was no fraud, then everything from initial inquiries to investigations should have been completely open and clear. However, the only thing clear was the obfuscation and obstruction by Wang, Jones, and the University of Albany to get to the bottom of this.

41. Fred Nieuwenhuis

    Did you follow my link? Can you spot misrepresentation when it stares you in the face? Can you not recognise fraudulent misrepresentation when it doesn’t suit you?

    Oh, never mind – this is the blogosmear, so you can say what you like. It’s just kind of amusing that so much of the steam driving the pseudo-skeptics at the moment comes from the pursuit of smear tactics. I gues you don’t have much science that stands up to any scrutiny, so it makes sense that you’d fall back on smearing in relation to a nineteen year old paper!

    I’m sure you’re all set up to call the inquiry into the CRU emails a ‘cover up’ should its findings not suit your predilections. Your naked agenda is very evident, and your casual dismissal of all principles of just representation speaks for itself.

42. A comment by “Joe” on the article in the Irish Times (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/1207/1224260240126.html)

    “Richard Tol “I’ve worked in this community for almost 20 years. The blow-up at CRU did not surprise me. There are a few other groups who are similarly politicised. I think that this is a minority, and that this problem has not contaminated the groups who do the core science. I have no proof for this apart from numerous conversations with a great many researchers in this area;; but then people are presumed innocent until shown otherwise.”

    The CRU blow up, whoever is responsible. Be it the Russians, the Saudis or some disgruntled insider. Is more an act of theatre than anything else. Something like this was eventually to bound happen.

    The problem with a little bit of corruption – or a little bit of bacteria – is how far it can spread.

    There is an assumption that if papers have made it through the peer-review process they are scientifically sound. This process is absolutely essential for scientists to build on the work of other scientists. Bad data or findings can destroy research work carried out by other scientists in good faith. There may even be many instances, where contradictory results were found and the researchers felt themselves under pressure to “normalise” the results.

    There have been accusations of scientific misconduct going back well over a decade. I have seen accusations that if true – render some very expensive research projects as junk – though they look very sexy. (If you’ve drilled through what you assumed is several thousand years of layered ice and you hit an abandoned WWII bomber, you may need to rethink your assumptions)

    Over the next few months – There may be even more shocking revelations. I have seen allegations that significant elements of the fundamental physics used in climate research is either wrong or has been misapplied.

    In the past I assumed the science was correct. And I believed the AGW theory. As I assumed the scientists were nothing like the psychopaths I’ve had the joy of working with over the years in the corporate world. Psychopaths who’s ultimate maxim is ‘Power is Integrity’. The AGW supporters seem to have a published paper for every sceptical counter claim. I doubt very much that many AGW supports have the expertise to understand these papers. Some of these papers propositions are not cast iron – they don’t stand up to basic scrutiny, like what is the margin of error on specific figures – how were the results “normalised”, Is 2Watts m/2 enough to light a bulb in a dolls house.

    In the instance of dishonesty and corruption, everyone comes out a loser.”

43. Petr summarizes the situation extremely well, IMHO.

44. The question of warming is a red herring. I can’t speak for the world, but the New England of my childhood and teens and early twenties was snowier and colder than now. My experience in the Asian tropics from my late-twenties to my early forties was of a progressively chillier tropics. Dr. Chylek has to be aware of evidence that calls into question “global” warming. I am becomng ever more convinced that what we are dealing with is regional variations that are part of an integrated system we are only vaguely cognizant of. (sorry for the dangling preposition…. American usage!)

    The adjustments to the HAdCrut and GISS metrics are called into question. My experience of a colder New England may not be entirely accurate…. I seem to remember pretty damn HOT New England summers at the same time…. and you don’t want to have Taiwan summers, or July in Hong Kong or Manila described to you when you could feel the fat being rendered off your body and you thought you were being melted on the sidewalk… or the bone-chilling, wet winters that followed.

    We have been using instrumentation designed for other purposes to gauge climate. It’s time to quit being either charitable or defensive. Figure out what we need to measure climate and then do it.

45. Simon Evans
    Thanks for the clarification of over land vs over ocean. I’ll try to remember that the next time I write bullet points. McKitrick did recently comment:

    In subsequent correspondence with Gavin Schmidt he reported to me that he had corrected an error his original IJOC archive and also that the GISS model classifies land differently than CRU so some of the 440 grid cells are actually over ocean in his model. He supplied me with the GISS landmask. I have recomputed the original results using the corrected data and the GISS landmask. The cosine-weighted amplification ratio over land is about 1.106 and over ocean is 1.602, where ‘land’ and ‘ocean’ are according to the GISS landmask applied to the 440 grid cells used in my 2007 paper.

    New Items, Ross McKitrick, Annotated Index ( I don’t know if McKitrick adjusted for your carrier pigeons.)

    Niels A Nielsen, thanks for the official quote.

    McKitrick (2008) clarifies:

    de Laat and Maurellis (2004, 2006) and McKitrick and Michaels and (2004a, 2007) show that the spatial pattern of temperature trends in gridded surface climate data is strongly correlated with indicators of land-use changes induced by socioeconomic development, broadly called anthropogenic surface processes (ASP). . . .These studies all report non
    climate-related effects in post-1980 surface temperature data on the scale of about half the observed warming trend over land.

    McKitrick, Ross R. (2008) Revision to “Atmospheric Oscillations Paper-revised.”

    So I misremembered in attributing the increase solely to the “Urban Heat Island” rather than generically to “Anthropogenic Surface Processes (ASP)”

    See McKitrick’s new paper submitted to the International Journal of Climatology:
    McKitrick, Ross R. and Nicolas Nierenberg (2009). Correlations between Surface Temperature Trends and Socioeconomic Activity: Toward a Causal Interpretation . Submitted to International Journal of Climatology (in response to: Spurious correlations between recent warming and indices of local economic activity Gavin A. Schmidt).
    In this “For peer review only draft” they show remarkable evidence that modeled data predicts patterns opposite that generated by observations. (Unofficially) they find a strong correlation between the surface trend field and industrialization and other forms of socioeconomic changes, strengthening further strengthen the 2007 results. I look forward to that being published.

46. Lucia,

    Feel free to move this or snip if this is in an inappropriate spot. In regards to Simon’s blasting of the Keenan charges, it looks like some of the internal documents about the matter exist in our wonderful cache of purloined data.

    From what I can tell, documents describing station moves no longer exists and in fact exist only in Dr. Zeng’s recollection. This seems to contradict Wang, but the university seems to have decided that her memory met “the letter of the law”.

    The thing I find confusing is that Jones/Wang were trying to select stations with few if any changes in instrumentation or location. Looking at the numbers for the 49 stations provided from Dr Zeng’s memory, it looks like only 17 of the 49 have not been moved. Am I misreading this chart ? To me this says a whopping 65% of the stations have been moved. How does no change on 35% of the stations jibe with selection of stations with few if any changes in location ? The university bought it and I am sure Simon will buy it, but is this normal ? Am I reading the document incorrectly ?

    It is 080222_ZMZeng_inputs.pdf

47. Simon Evans:

    Wang beat the rap on fraud but those Chinese stations did not move themselves back to their purported locations, did they? It is still bogus but had a politically correct conclusion. The no-UHI conclusion, once widely cited, is still bogus. Like the hockey stick fiasco, some warmers fight eternal rear guard actions even when the science is not there. Why bother?

    What ramble in the Alaska thread directed at me requires a response? That I said “invariably” instead of “overwhelmingly?” I stand corrected.

    Perhaps now you would offer an explanation as to why the surface records keep trending higher than the satellite data (Pielke Sr is all over this today, BTW) and how it is that airport tarmacs are suitable rural correction references.

    Also look at Willis Eschenbach’s recent analysis of Australian data where the adjustments are all upward and (so far) unexplained.

    Lastly consider the caliber of exchange by some of the guardians of that data and then convince me that I should believe that there is no bias in the record.

    Which brings us back to Prof. Chylek’s email which is the subject of the thread and the issue of “the perceived need to ‘prove’ that the current global average temperature is higher than it was at any other time in recent history” and all the problems that has caused.

48. “There have been accusations of scientific misconduct going back well over a decade. I have seen accusations that if true – render some very expensive research projects as junk – though they look very sexy. (If you’ve drilled through what you assumed is several thousand years of layered ice and you hit an abandoned WWII bomber, you may need to rethink your assumptions)

    Over the next few months – There may be even more shocking revelations. I have seen allegations that significant elements of the fundamental physics used in climate research is either wrong or has been misapplied. ”

    Yes, the hackers have achieved their aims. Completel wackiness is now the order of the day.

49. Over the next few months – There may be even more shocking revelations. I have seen allegations that significant elements of the fundamental physics used in climate research is either wrong or has been misapplied.

    Please don’t leave us hanging. If you are going to allude to shocking revelations and allegations that the fundamental physics are wrong/misapplied, please give us a few links so we can judge ourselves. I want to know the truth, whichever way it goes, but if all I get is opinion and unfounded claims, it does me no good.

50. Artifex,

    I’ll quote myself, from comments on the thread I’ve linked to:

    The statements you suggest are false describe selection on the basis of “few/relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times….”

    1.Do you have knowledge of the stations which were not selected because they had more inconsistencies? If not, how then do you assert falsehood?

    2. Are you not aware that changes in instrumentation or observation time may be more significant than a change in location within the same micro-climate? The statements which you assert to be false generalise the ‘fewness’ of changes, of course – you only give examples of location change without considering the possibility that the station may have been selected for the ‘fewness’ of its changes in other respects.

    3. Are you not aware that the examples of location change you quote from Keenan are his ‘best shots’ and that it is indeed true that other chosen locations show no such changes at all?

    Please recognise that the Wang statement did not suggest that the selection had been determined only in terms of few location changes.

    I do not think that the statement in Wang’s paper was clearly enough expressed, and it would be fair criticism to make that point.

    Are you aware that this paper of Wang’s found a UHI bias of 0.1C/decade? Can you suggest to me how you think it plausible that he should have engaged in a ‘fraud’ which threw up a result so contrary to a global-warming thesis?

51. George Tobin (Comment#27281) December 9th, 2009 at 7:12 pm

    The no-UHI conclusion, once widely cited, is still bogus.

    You very obviously haven’t read Wang’s paper. See my previous post, where I point out that he found a 0.1C/decade UHI effect! Is that not big enough for you?

    You don’t read the papers you’re referencing, you don’t do any basic research, you simply spout attitudes you’ve picked up from elsewhere. You really are not worth engaging with in discussion since you can’t even be bothered to read what you’re commenting on! What on earth is the point of coming on here in complete ignorance of what you’re referencing and simply regurgitating what you’ve picked up? Go do some reading!.

52. Molon Labe,

    In reference to the letter you posted for our view,

    the gentleman has also not mentioned that Dr. Pielke Sr. and associates have published papers on and appear fairly certain that the land temp record is biased high!! To be clear, they still think we are warming and Anthro is part of it.

    He has posted on this within the last 2 months at his blog.

53. Still think that the nothing in the CRU e-mails or computer codes disproves the mountain of evidence that global warming is man-made? In 15 years, not one person in the climate community detected the goings-on at CRU. How could that happen? Or, perhaps some researchers did know but did not report it? Or, did everyone in the community just see the data from CRU that they expected to see so they questioned nothing? I don’t think so. To many student interns and professorial sabbaticals to the CRU no doubt. As well, GISS and NOAA are reticent to release raw data and algorithms but their results happen to match those of CRU and the model predictions. The entire community is suspect!

    Here is the reference you should be using: Would you get on an airliner designed by the scientists at CRU or anyone in a scientific community that tolerated such behavior? Of course not! There is no other conclusion that can be drawn but that everything published in the climate community must be reveiwed and re-verified from top-to-bottom . Until that is accomplished, the only scientific opinion one can have is that nothing coming from this community can be considered certain. This is a shame because we now know that we are blind to what is going on with the climate. Blind! That is an even more dangerous situation than the one the climate community has been touting.

    Quit making excuses!

54. Simon Evans,

    in reference to the link you dropped, did you want us to read the comment from Anonymous??

    “…Read the odd letter as a lawyer rather than a layman and it all makes sense.
    The letter says the “the investigation committee finds no evidence of the alleged fabrication of results and nothing that rises to the level of research misconduct having been committed by Dr. Wang.”

    The operative phrases in this two part sentence are (1) fabrication of RESULTS and (2) having been COMMITTED BY DR. WANG.

    The way I read the letter – and I have written many similar ones in my career – is that Albany found something. And it was large and was research misconduct. It involved the fabrication of DATA not results and it involved research misconduct by someone other than Dr. Wang. I have my suspicions of whom they are referring to but they are just suspicions.
    …”

    Free the code, free the data, open the proceedings so we ALL can see what was done and what was found and can make up our own minds!!

55. Here is Wang’s 1990 paper, for anyone who would actually like to read the darned thing (it’s easier just to go along with the pack baying “fraud” of course, so just don’t read the following if you like doing that) :

    http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5620/b23.pdf

    “…stations in China located in the vicinity of major cities have relatively large heat islands. The changes in the magnitude of the urban-rural temperature differences over the 1954-83 period indicate that since the late 1970s the rate of warming at urban stations is over 0.1C per decade relative to more rural stations.

    But why do I bother? Apparently, in the distorted minds of some, this is evidence of ‘fraud’ in pursuit of the “no-UHI conclusion !!!!!

56. Artifex–
    I haven’t familiarized myself with this case and I don’t plan to dig into it. I have no idea whether anything is “normal” or “not normal”.

57. “I want to know the truth, whichever way it goes, but if all I get is opinion and unfounded claims, it does me no good.”

    LOL

    Here’s a claim for you: There are hundreds of studies, as well as HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS that the MWP was as warm or warmer than the present (which is now cooling). So please splain HOW you can blame OCO for the current warming (if there is a current warming beyond the rigged temperature records).

58. Simon Evans,

    The fact that Wang found .1c UHI or better is a misdirection and a JOKE!!! A paper that is referenced by CRU quotes UHI as .005c. Are we to take these things seriously??

    i think the phrase is guarding the retreat and BUYING TIME!!!

59. kuhnkat (Comment#27293)

    The way I read the letter….

    And the way I read your post is that you are someone looking for an angle…

    How about reading Wang’s paper, kuhnkat? When you’ve done so, would you like to tell me what issues you have with it? It is a paper pointing out the significant UHI impact around Chinese cities, is it not? It warns against using trends from such UHI influenced stations, does it not? Would you now please explain to me what was the nature of Wang’s ‘fraud’ that you seem to be alleging? What was his motive? Has he fraudulently proposed a significant UHI effect without proper evidence?

60. This is quite a revelation so far – we have the usual echo-chamber voices reiterating the pseudo-skeptic talking points, but they’re not up to actually reading the original paper and realising that their claims are ludicrous!

    Have any of you passers-on of other people’s opinions read the paper yet? Hmm? What do you make of Wang’s finding of significant UHI effect? Hmm? Is UHI effect a fraud then?

    Deeply contemptible!

61. Simon Evans,

    Yes, why do you bother??

62. kuhnkat (Comment#27301) December 9th, 2009 at 8:04 pm

    Simon Evans,

    Yes, why do you bother??

    With young earth creationists I don’t, actually, but others read this blog, and others will follow my link to Wang’s paper and will see what he was saying, and will see how insane the charges you (and George Tobin) make against him are, and will maybe reconsider the distorted attitudes that are spouted by pseudo-skeptics…..

    So that’s why I bother – I just figured it out.

63. Simon,
    The proverbial “sweater” I referred to elsewhere on this blog continues to unravel before our eyes.

    Your postings are starting to look like the cat fighting the growing pile of wool. Time perhaps for some linden tea, valeriana or other soothing infusions?

64. Did you read Wang’s paper tetris? Got anything intelligent to say? (Oh, and I’m still waiting for your gracious acceptance of the fact that you posted a bullshit statement about current Canadian GISS stations – just so we can know that you’re a person of integrity, yes?).

65. Simon Evans,
    .
    STRAWMAN ALERT!!!
    .
    “Would you now please explain to me what was the nature of Wang’s ‘fraud’ that you seem to be alleging?”
    .
    Please reread the extract from Anonymous’ post on the thread you linked to. Where does he say WANG defrauded anyone??
    .
    STRAWMAN ALERT
    .
    ” Has he fraudulently proposed a significant UHI effect without proper evidence?”
    .
    What is so significant about .1c?? This is YOUR interpretation. As it is based on questionable data it matters not whether it is negative .1, .1, or 10!!! IT IS NOT SIGNIFICANT!!
    .
    “How about reading Wang’s paper, kuhnkat? When you’ve done so, would you like to tell me what issues you have with it?”
    .
    Yes Simon, As I am such an expert I should read every paper that is published and you will accept my evaluation of it unquestionably!!
    .
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    .
    “Deeply contemptible!”
    .
    Yes Simon Evans, you are DEEPLY CONTEMPTIBLE!!!
    .
    You accuse those of us who believe Dr. Keenan and the results of the investigation as being deluded and unknowledgeable if not actively smearing Dr. Wang.
    .
    You SMEAR Dr. Keenan and his results as WRONG with NO EVIDENCE THAT HE IS!!!
    .
    Isn’t this EXACTLY WHAT YOU ACCUSE US OF???

66. You accuse those of us who believe Dr. Keenan and the results of the investigation as deluded and unknowledgeable if not actively smearing Dr. Wang.

    So you haven’t read Wang’s paper then. Goodnight, kuhnkat.

67. Simon Evans,

    STRAWMAN ALERT!!!

    “You accuse those of us who believe Dr. Keenan and the results of the investigation as deluded and unknowledgeable if not actively smearing Dr. Wang.

    So you haven’t read Wang’s paper then. Goodnight, kuhnkat.”

    How does reading the paper validate or invalidate the DATA?!?!?!?! This is one of the Trojan Horses of the current PEER REVIEWED LITCHURCHUR!!!!

    And YOU apparently claim that you are more of an expert than Dr. Keenan, those who actually conducted the investigation, and any number of others who HAVE READ ALL THREE JUST BY READING HIS PAPER?!?!?!?!?!

    Yes, GOOD NIGHT, Simon Evans.

68. What? Keenan is a person who won’t answer a straight question, as I’ve evidenced, and, more to the point, someone who misrepresents quotations, as evidenced. I don’t think much of him, in my experience of him.

    You really don’t get it, do you, kuhnkat? If you’d actually read the Wang paper you might get it! This was a paper which stressed the discovery of UHI impact! Entirely bizarrely, people who haven’t read it – like George Tobin – present the ‘talking point’ that Wang was fraudulently presenting “the no-UHI conclusion”!

    I’m familiar with pseudo-skeptics talking nonsense, but this is just comedy gold! Please keep it up – kuhnkat, George, whomever – it’s just the best illustration of how ignorant and fundamentally silly you are one could hope for!

69. In case there is ANY question in anyone’s mind, NO, I have not read the paper. In some cases, and this is DEFINITELY one, it is not necessary to read the paper to know it has conclusions that are not useable.

    The result of the investigation was that the data used no longer existed. Under questioning, the assistant, who alledgedly did the collecting, gave answers that resulted in information that was unlikely to result in the data used in the paper EVEN IF IT WAS AVAILABLE!!!

    Anonymous’ comment implied that, without having any private conversations between the assistant and Dr. Wang, the only thing Dr. Wang could be found guilty of was trusting the assistant and therefore he was exonerated of charges of fraud or misconduct…!!!

    Dr. Wang’s exoneration obviously does NOT, then, validate the paper. It, in fact, leaves the results of the paper in question. It can NOT be duplicated with data available to Dr Wang, his assistants, or anyone else known to the investigation.

    The DOG ate his homework!!! He didn’t show ALL his work!!…

    The paper is a waste of time to read unless you would like to use Dr. Wang’s procedure to do your own study with available data!!

70. It, in fact, leaves the results of the paper in question.

    So there’s no significant UHI effect found in China (in 1990)?

    Please keep this up, kuhnkat, it’s just so funny! If you could do a bit more of that shouting in capitals stuff it will be even funnier!

    (It’s ok, btw – you didn’t need to clarify – we know you haven’t read the paper).

71. Simon Evans,

    You still don’t get it do you???

    The results do not matter if they are not reproducible.

    The reason he did whatever he did does not matter if the paper is not reproducible.

    I do not care how many puppies he, or you, are trying to save from drowning. The paper is NOT reproducible!!!

72. Simon Evans’

    “It, in fact, leaves the results of the paper in question.

    So there’s no significant UHI effect found in China (in 1990)?

    Please keep this up, kuhnkat, it’s just so funny! If you could do a bit more of that shouting in capitals stuff it will be even funnier!

    (It’s ok, btw – you didn’t need to clarify – we know you haven’t read the paper).”
    ..
    May I use YOUR argument to get all those sceptic and denier papers published in “GOOD” Journals now??
    ..
    It doesn’t matter that the paper isn’t reproducible, Vernon Kuhns wants there to be:
    ..
    1) a flat temperature trend
    2) no glaciers melting
    3) sea level flat
    4) Arctic ice extent normal
    5) 5c/D UHI
    …

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

73. kuhnkat

    Thank you very much for making me realise, from your talking points, that Wang’s discovery of UHI effect is groundless.

    Wang (apparently) fraudulently asserted there was a significant UHI effect in China.

    It’s shocking.

    You’re very funny 🙂

74. If you could do a bit more of that shouting in capitals stuff it will be even funnier!

    Perhaps Kuhnkat has had one too many Drill Sergeants yelling in his face… 🙂

75. For those who’ve followed Dr. Pielke Sr’s blog, he has discussed on several occasions the inner workings of climate models.
    For instance:
    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/real-climate-misunderstanding-of-climate-models/

    First, there are always tunable parameters within each parameterization, and there are always quite a few more than one or two.

    Second, the only basic physics in the models are the pressure gradient force, advection and the acceleration due to gravity. These are the only physics in which there are no tunable coefficients. Climate models are engineering codes and not fundamental physics.

76. Simon & Kuhnkat–
    There is no way to resolve whether or not there was fraud in Wang’s paper by having a discussion in comments and it’s a bit far off field from the main topic of this post. I suggest you might want to find other topics.

77. George Tobin, where are you?

    This is you chance to demonstrate whether you have integrity or not. You’ll have read the Wang paper by now, I think, so please tell us what you would like us to think about your previous statement, viz.:

    The no-UHI conclusion, once widely cited, is still bogus.

    I put a lot of weight on whether or not people can ‘fess up to being wrong at times. Let’s see how you do (of course, integrity is not a requirement for posting on blogs, so no worries if you’re not bothered about it).

78. Petr Chylek says:

    This includes the construction of the HadCRUT and NASA GISS datasets documenting the rise of globally averaged temperature during the last century. I do not believe that this work can be affected in any way by the recent email revelations.

    While the ClimateGate emails may not, how about Ross McKitrick (2009) above?

    http://www.surfacestations.org/
    Then Willis Eschenbach in The Smoking Gunn at Darwin Zero shows Figure 8 Darwin Zero Temperature �Homogeneity� Adjustment by GHCN shows adjustments (�corrections�?) of about 2.3 C between about 1930 and 1980 to the �corrections� in the raw Darwin Airport temperatures.

    The Migrant Mind posts How Correcting the Data Heats the Earth. It shows a graph of: �Difference Between Raw and Final USHCN Data Sets�. This has about a 0.5F increase between about 1960 and 1990.

    Can we rely on HadCRUT and GISS in light of such revelations?

    How can we pursue Petr’s

    Let us open the doors of universities, of NCAR, NASA and other research institutions (and funding agencies) to faculty members and researchers who might disagree with the current paradigm of carbon dioxide. Only open discussion and intense searching of all possibilities will let us regain the public�s trust and move forward.

    ?

79. Petr Chylek says:

    This includes the construction of the HadCRUT and NASA GISS datasets documenting the rise of globally averaged temperature during the last century. I do not believe that this work can be affected in any way by the recent email revelations.

    While the ClimateGate emails may not, how about Ross McKitrick (2009) above?

    Anthony Watts’ Surface Stations Report

    Willis Eschenbach in The Smoking Gunn at Darwin Zero shows Figure 8 Darwin Zero Temperature Adjustment by GHCN shows adjustments of about 2.3 C between about 1930 and 1980 to the in the raw Darwin Airport temperatures.

    The Migrant Mind posts How Correcting the Data Heats the Earth. It shows a graph of: “Difference Between Raw and Final USHCN Data Sets. This has about a 0.5F increase between about 1960 and 1990.

    Can we rely on HadCRUT and GISS in light of such revelations?

    How can we pursue Petr’s

    Let us open the doors of universities, of NCAR, NASA and other research institutions (and funding agencies) to faculty members and researchers who might disagree with the current paradigm of carbon dioxide. Only open discussion and intense searching of all possibilities will let us regain the public�s trust and move forward.

    ?

80. At Niche Modeling, David Stockwell proposes Evidence Based Practice for IPCC Fraud Solutions

81. Stockwell wouldn’t know what science was. He has spent months trying to justify Miskcolczi’s nonsense.

82. bugs

    . . .trying to justify Miskcolczi’s nonsense.

    Do you understand that paper? Even remotely? I don’t.

83. Molon Labe
    Steve at Climate Audit is taking apart the Thompson Glacier study in a post today and has also done so previously.

84. Simon:

    Wang (apparently) fraudulently asserted there was a significant UHI effect in China.

    There could be a significant UHI, Wang’s conclusions could be right, and he still could commit fraud.

    Nothing inconsistent with that. Remember the story about the students who measured Newton’s constant of gravity G to 3 decimal places? (When they method they used included a systematic error that shifted the number 10% away from the nominal value?)

    Just because you get the “right number” may mean nothing more than you exhibited confirmation bias or even fraud.

85. Simon Evans,
    Calm down, buddy. You’re scoring some good points. Just try to keep an even keel. This is a good question: Is Wang’s 0.1C/decade UHI effect an underestimate, and how is this estimate corrected for in the various land surface records? M&M’s papers suggest that whatever “correction” is used under-corrects. But who is right? I hope we can focus on science rather than law.
    .
    It’s clear from the emails that was a deliberate attempt to overstate the relative warmth of the modern instrumental period. You can’t win that argument. The issue now is what do the data *really* say when you subtract motive and data mishandling.

86. This is what Judy Curry *SHOULD* have said. It is a shame she didn’t.

87. bender,

    I’d guess that for the pairs of urban/rural stations Wang compared the UHI effect might have been an underestimate because the ‘rural’ stations were not truly rural – he made this clear in the paper. So the temperature differences were between areas of much larger and smaller populations.

    He wasn’t dealing directly with correction to produce a global record, but it’s worth noting that he concluded, at the time, that more station pairs would be needed to predict UHI annually. It seems to me that he was not really in accord with Jones at the time.

    Who is right? I don’t know, of course, but there are limitations in the Michaels & McKitrick paper. Finding a correlation between socio-economic factors and temperature gain in a set of grid cells which are not chosen as being a set representative of the globe strikes me as being an unusual way of seeking to assess global land temperature trend, even before considering whether any such correlation is causal. If M&M were right then we end up with the rather odd hypothesis that the trend in economically developed regions is exaggerated whilst the trend in non-developed regions is unaffected (and too over the oceans, of course). Since some of the steepest warming trends are across non-developed grid cells that leads me to think that we’d have to hypothesise an urban cooling effect! 😉

    Anyway, no more from me today – I shall go keep an even keel doing something in the real world!

88. Simon Evans (Comment#27376)-This tells me you don’t understand M&M’s regression model. When you say: “the steepest warming trends are across non-developed grid cells” you are neglecting the fact that such expectations (high latitude warming) would be accounted for by the climatic predictors in their model. These include the satellite temps, latitude, sea level pressure, proximity to coastlines, the whether a grid cell is “dry” etc.

89. I have to laugh at the pathetic logic twists that scientists are using to try to justify their own belief in AGW theory. The claims about the temperature databases being accurate are ridiculous. They can’t possibly know this. I repeat, they CAN NOT possibly know this. When they state confidence in those numbers, they are simply making statements of faith.

    The adjustment processes have not been made public. What data we have been able to see raises very serious questions about those adjustments.

    The surface station siting is abominable. 90% of the stations flunk basic standards. They don’t know which 90% are bad, by how much, or in what circumstances. Yet, they assure us that their super-duper, top secret adjustment algorith can take all that crap and spin it into accurate gold. I call BS. That’s total fairy tale BS. Anyone who believes they can is not making a scientific judgment, they are espousing religious faith. And until they release the details to let the world look over it, no one has any basis for believing them.

    Of course, that’s the problem with all the rest of the supposed science. No one ever checks. Why is it so hard for these so-called scientists to understand the need for audits and replication? We don’t care if “science doesn’t work that way”. If you want to make these massive changes in society, the supporting science better damn sure START working this way. Stonewalling, move the pea, bait and switch and Hide-the-ball are all OVER. Free the code, free the data, free the methodology, and let some desperately needed sunlight start disinfecting the whole moldy, rotten, stinking mess.

    1. Temperature databases should be regarded as totally worthless until all the raw data, the code, the adjustments, the siting problems, et al have been published for the whole world to review and digest. Until then, you ain’t got squat!

    2. No published study should be regarded as sufficiently sound until it has been replicated by disinterested scientists. And Stats work needs to be vetted by stats experts. Software by software engineers. No more Mannian amateur hour BS. That crap is no longer welcome. Scientists need to stick to the science and bring in pros to do the heavy lifting. The future of the world is too important to be left to amateurs flailing around out of their depth.

    3. No climate model is worth a damn until it has been verified and validated. Period. It would be brain dead stupid to rely on predictions to impose massive costs on the world when the predictions can’t meet minimum forecasting standards. What kind of idiot wants to make that kind of claim. Geeez!

    So here’s where we are alarmist scientists. We don’t trust studies that haven’t been replicated. We don’t trust databases with secret adjustments. We don’t trust models that haven’t been verified and validated. We don’t trust scientists playing around in areas where they are amateurs and refusing to let the pros come straighten out their messes.

    And the sum of all that is that you have very little work that is worthy of any trust right now.

90. Simon Evans (Comment#27237) Re SST

    Steve McIntyre says: “If, as outlined here, this 0.3 deg C adjustment has to come off the post-1970 record, as implied by the information at hand, it is a very large proportion of the post-1970 temperature increase, which is much reduced and allocated earlier in the century. Because the effect is so large relative to observed changes, the knock-on impact for attribution and modeling will not be small – whatever way it goes.

    One hopes that this will also lead to an end to CRU secrecy on their source code, algorithms and data versions.”
    http://climateaudit.org/2008/05/29/lost-at-sea-the-search-for-windowed-marine-de-trending/

    Wherever one looks in the temperature datasets, there are problematic revision upwards in recent temp, and downwards in historic temp. It is all done quite deliberately of course.

91. Simon,

    Thx for reminding me about GISS in Canada. The list you so generously offered up while it appears to contain some Canadian locations proves nothing in terms of whether the GISS data set actually has any meaningful sources in Canada. Let’s assume for a moment that GISS have a data point in say Swift Current, Saskatchewan, in practical terms that is about as meaningful as adding as second reading to their series from say, NoWheresville, North Dakota. The point is that Canada has some 8.0 million sq km of territory that are north of the 200 mile corridor in which 90% of Canada’s population lives. Those 8.0 million sq km happen to include latitudes all the way into the Arctic [and over a longitudinal distance second only to Russia] that are of prime interest in terms of understanding what in fact is going on in terms of global surface temperatures. The fact that GISS has no coverage of this enormous land area in its global data [and has to resort to making stuff up by means of sundry extrapolations] makes a complete mockery of the credibility of their data.

    Add to that the GIGO series produced by NOAA [Watt’s surfacestations.org exercise demonstrated that NOAA’s data sources are largely corrupted] and of course the “value-added” CRU crud, and it becomes pretty clear to most people [the great unwashed that is, who do not inhabit the ivory tower..] that we collectively don’t have the foggiest about what is actually going on. Which is why Mann, Jones and the rest of the Team made it up as required.

    About Wang: the fact that Wang got away with what had all the hallmarks of fraud, doesn’t prove he didn’t do it. Universities will do just about anything to avoid crucifying their faculty, as we will witness sometime soon when PSU produces a whitewash after “investigating” Mann. When the system has a vested interest in protecting the fraudster, the latter walks. Such is the ivory tower. I know because I used to live there once, a long time ago. Wang, Mann, Jones, Briffa, Trenberth, et. al. should all count themselves very lucky they don’t work in the private sector…

    By the way, wasn’t Jones a co-author on a paper published in the last few years that showed that some 40% of temperature variations at the Chinese locations studied were attributable to UHI? Wasn’t Wang’s data used in the paper?

92. lucia (Comment#27366)
    bugs
    . . .trying to justify Miskcolczi’s nonsense.
    Do you understand that paper? Even remotely? I don’t.
    I have read the paper in considerable detail. And bugs is right. It is nonsense.

93. Bender,

    how would you go about reproducing Dr. Wangs paper?? How would Steve McI. audit it??

    In this case we KNOW the data is not available. What is the point??

    You either believe in it or throw it out. You can not discuss a lack of data. You can only arm wave. The fact that there are more papers than Dr. Wangs out there with similar issues should give us good reason to SHUN any discussion of papers that do not meet the basic requirements of reproducibility.

    In Petyr Chylek’s letter he referred to the temperature record:

    ” Thus, the first of the three pillars supporting the hypothesis of manmade global warming seems to be solid.”

    If the papers supporting the adjustments to the data and the actual data is not fully available and auditable he could be wrong!!! This should be a first effort, cleaning up the record from the data the Papers and temp series are based on to the adjustments they claim are needed, to the final results, the temp series and models themselves.

    Without shunning the bad science we can not reach that goal.

94. Simon evans:

    I will try to keep it simple and concrete.
    Fraud:
    1) Wang (and Jones) claimed to rely on data from over 80 stations selected because those stations were not moved nor otherwise in need of adjustment during the 3 decade period under study.
    2) There is no available data for 49 of them. It is also well-established that several stations did in fact move during that time. Therefore, representations of the data relied upon were substantially incorrect.
    3) Given the nature and magnitude of the error, it seems unlikely that this was a simple mistake or computational error.
    4) Wang was cleared of academic fraud. We do not know what the findings were because the results of the investigation are secret.
    5) It is my understanding that there has still been no explanation of the specific discrepancies nor any subsequent release of the allegedly extant data or proof of their existence.

    Simon, don’t bother trumpeting the fact that Wang beat the rap (so did OJ). Instead please offer a logical, innocent explanation for the discrepancies discussed above. [Note: Calling the accuser Keenan or me bad names or citing some alleged error posted by Anthony Watts or Steve McIntyre does not count as a relevant, material response. ]

    As for the 0.1 C figure you think is a refutation of some kind.. (By the way, I did read the paper along with the formal accusation when the scandal broke.)

    The political context is simple enough. How much of the warming the record can be attributable to any factors other than CO2?

    Here is a handy Alarmist Guide to this issue: CO2 as cause GOOD, anything else (such as UHI) BAD.

    Wang produced a very low UHI number with highly suspect methods. That low figure (which may not even be statistically significant) was cited approvingly by persons who prefer low UHi findings.

    After the Wang fiasco, his former coauthor, the now world-famous Phil Jones came back with a new China UHI paper using SSTs instead of rural stations as a reference.

    (…Odd that Jones would not have reused any of that secret urban data Wang said really existed but was not releasable except to Wang and Jones. Instead Jones had to use sea surface temps (!?) as his rural station reference which even Jones says in the paper is a weak reference)…but I digress).

    Phil Jones came up with a UHI figure of (drum roll. please) — 0.1 C– the same as the suspect Wang number. When The Team fixes on a number, it stays fixed.

    Conclusion
    Our surface temp records use airport tarmacs as rural references and ignore or minimize everything possible about the effects of land use. As a result, we can squeeze that UHI number as low as possible and thus attribute more to CO2. I have no confidence that the “homogenization” and other adjustment processes are immune from a predisposition (conscious or not) to minimize UHI effects.

    Do I think all or even most reported warming is attributable to UHI? Of course not. Do I think there is widespread conscious fraud in the temp records? Not at all.

    Do I think there is currently an overpowering political and ideological climate (pun intended) that drives every methodological choice in the same direction and has thus created a substantial bias in climate science and in the research it relies upon. Hell, yes. And that, old son, is the unmistakable lesson of Climategate.

95. George Tobin [27392]
    Thx for clarifying the Jones / Wang publications.

96. Nick

    I have read the paper in considerable detail.

    I tried to read it. I’ve tried. . .

    Quite honestly, I don’t know how anyone can read it in considerable detail.

97. lucia,

    I can’t make sense of Miskolczi either. Looking at various physics discussion sites that have bothered to pay any attention at all, it looks like the form of the virial theorem he uses only applies to a gas ball like a star or possibly a gas giant planet, not a solid planet with a thin layer of gas. That’s like finding a sign error on the first page of a 50 page mathematical proof. It makes looking at the rest of the proof pointless. But even if that weren’t true, the idea that you can assign a single numerical value to the optical density (over the entire thermal IR band I guess) of the atmosphere is not credible. That’s what you do with toy models, like a single layer non-reflective model, not the real world.

98. I don’t understand the continuing skeptic belief in a warm global MWP, in the face of non-Mann and non-tree-ring hockey stick graphs.
    Instead of attacking the original hockey stick, wouldn’t skeptic efforts be better directed at collecting proxy data sets that support their own global MWP?
    There may be difficulty in finding enough supporting data sets, as inferred from the absence of synchronicity in Soon&Baliunas2003. They just accumulated regional 50-year data sets that occurred anywhere in the long interval from 800AD to 1300AD.
    Mann et al 2008 (no pay wall) includes a global map showing the locations of its 1208 data sets. Presumably the place to look for a global MWP would be in-between, in the largest gaps.

99. Francis [27429]
    The “warmist” camp makes the fundamental mistake of intimating that neither the MWP nor the LIA were real phenomena because there is no “temperature data” either from real thermometers or proxies. This nonsense of course: the historical record is not just made up of “thermometers”, it contains many other sources of information, all of which support the existence not only of the MWP and the LIA, but of the Roman Warm Period as well.

    Starting an argument about whether these phenomena were global or not is the straw man necessary to support the hockey stick story itself.

100. DeWitt Payne (Comment#27403)
     The virial problem is that it assumes the air molecules stay up there by being in orbit, rather than through the effect of gas pressure on a solid surface and the resulting gradient. This imputes to them a ridiculous energy. But another problem was that he relates this PE/KE to a radiative flux, in an unexplained way.

     That’s one of at least four major issues.

101. Nick Stokes,

     As I can’t do the math I accept your and others explanations of the issue with M’s work.

     On the other hand, how do you interpret the data they gathered?

102. kuhnkat (Comment#27478)
     On the other hand, how do you interpret the data they gathered?
     They did no experiments. They took a set of profiles from a standard radiosonde database. These are just pressure, temperature and gas conc readings from various balloon ascents. No IR measures. They did calcs using their LBL program Hartcode (like Modtran), and plotted the results. The description of what they did is totally inadequate, and there is no methods section. And no SI, code or data.

103. Tetris (#27437)…..Of course, all temperature data older than about 1880 will be from proxy data sets.
     The Little Ice Age was a real event in Europe and New England, but not relevant to the hypothetical existance of a global MWP (comparable to present warming).
     …On the contrary, there is agreement from AGW proponents to the regional existence of a MWP from Europe to Greenland (and maybe grapes in Newfoundland). But the issue is ‘global’ warming. Any regional warming just get averaged into this global total.
     I was not aware that there were enough proxy data sets to establish a Roman Warm Period in the Northern Hemisphere, or globally.

104. Francis (Comment#27429)-

     Where to begin with this?

     “I don’t understand the continuing skeptic belief in a warm global MWP, in the face of non-Mann and non-tree-ring hockey stick graphs.”

     What “non Mann” “non tree ring” “hockey stick graphs” are you referring to, exactly? You seem to have a great misunderstanding of the nature of the problem with the paleoclimate community.

     “Instead of attacking the original hockey stick, wouldn’t skeptic efforts be better directed at collecting proxy data sets that support their own global MWP?”

     First of all, the original hockey stick is still criticized because people keep coming forth to defend it and because it was a travesty. Secondly, there are truly massive amounts of data on the MWP. Perhaps someone can explain to me why the continued reliance on bristlecones and A Few Good Cores?

     “There may be difficulty in finding enough supporting data sets, as inferred from the absence of synchronicity in Soon&Baliunas2003. They just accumulated regional 50-year data sets that occurred anywhere in the long interval from 800AD to 1300AD.”

     Esper, J. and Frank, D. 2009. The IPCC on a heterogeneous Medieval Warm Period. Climatic Change 94: 267-273.
     According to which: ‘quantification of proxy data coherence suggests that it was erroneous [for the IPCC] to conclude that the records displayed in AR4 are indicative of a heterogeneous climate during the MWP.’

     “Mann et al 2008 (no pay wall) includes a global map showing the locations of its 1208 data sets. Presumably the place to look for a global MWP would be in-between, in the largest gaps.”

     http://www.co2science.org/data/timemap/mwpmap.html
     [warning-you’ll need Java]

105. tetris (Comment#27389)

     I note that you are incapable of accepting that you made a straightforwardly false statement regarding Canadian stations. Anyone can make a mistake, and there is credit to be had from accepting such. Given that is beyond you , there can be no interest to be had in your views of other people’s standards.

106. George Tobin (Comment#27392) December 10th, 2009 at 5:11 pm

     Simon evans:

     I will try to keep it simple and concrete.
     Fraud:
     1) Wang (and Jones) claimed to rely on data from over 80 stations selected because those stations were not moved nor otherwise in need of adjustment during the 3 decade period under study.

     That is wrong from point 1, as anyone can tell from reading the paper. You say you’ve read it, so I have to presume your misrepresentation is deliberate.

     Given that you then go on to reiterate charges of fraud against this scientist having started your post with a falsehood I think you can guess my view of your personal ‘standards’.

     You are not succeeding in discrediting Wang, but only yourself.

107. To all re Simon Evans. Standard diversionary tactics on show here. Get posters involved in reading and discussing off topic papers. Find any matter of dispute therein and try to discredit posters. All specifically designed to avoid the issue, that the Warmers (key IPCC contributors and gatekeepers) lied, cheated, deceived, bullied, in their own written record.

108. Andrew_FL (Comment#27379)

     Writing a quick response before going out, I’d made a mistake anyway – I was thinking of the 2004 paper when mentioning a set of grid cells. My apols.

109. Simon Evans (Comment#27196) December 9th, 2009 at 11:14 am

     quote “The CRU Zip letters indicate that there has been an effort to exaggerate the rate of warming”

     What’s the evidence for that? Besides, Chylek says that HadCRUT and GISS are unaffected. I don’t see how the rate of warming could be exaggerated without altering the temperature record. unquote

     On the contrary, the CRUtape emails suggest that the scientists involved were more worried that the rate of warming and cooling during the 39/40 to 44/45 ‘blip’ needed to be hidden, presumably because the models couldn’t explain it.
     .
     Repeat after me: if the models don’t match the data, first check the models….
     .
     Some idea of the extent of the SST drop in 1945 can be found by Googling “Part 2 of The Large SST Discontinuity Also Appears in Cloud Cover and Marine Air Temperature Data”: this will take you to Bob Tisdale’s post which includes a graph. The blip also, incidentally, shows up in surface windspeeds over the ocean in an FOA (I think) non-digitised set of graphs related to fish productivity — presumably windspeed affects upwelling and hence nutrient levels. Windspeed increases over the oceans in the blip. I can explain this. Well, OK, I can handwave this and better than Tom Wigley. Prediction: sea surface winds will also veer slightly in the blip.

     JF

110. MarkR (Comment#27503) December 11th, 2009 at 5:00 am

     To all re Simon Evans. Standard diversionary tactics on show here. Get posters involved in reading and discussing off topic papers.

     Read the thread and you will see that McKitrick & Michaels, 2007 was introducewd here:

     David L. Hagen (Comment#27235)

     And Wang’s paper on UHI in China was introduced here:

     George Tobin (Comment#27241)

     (and this latter post was addressed directly to me asking for a response).

     So no, your charge is self-evidently false.

     “lied, cheated, deceived, bullied….”

     Ho ho – I always enjoy the irony.

111. Julian Flood (Comment#27505)

     Repeat after me: if the models don’t match the data, first check the models….

     Hmm… unless it was UAH data up to 2005?

112. Simon, you are a thorough bore. The post was about Petr Chylek’s “Open Letter to the Climate Research Community”. Address the issues in it.

     By all means have a cry about other matters, but do it elsewhere.

113. GrantB (Comment#27513)

     The post was about Petr Chylek’s “Open Letter to the Climate Research Community”. Address the issues in it.

     Your complaint should be addressed to David L. Hagen, who introduced comments on the Michaels and McKitrick paper, to which I respeonded, and to George Tobin, who introduced comments on the Wang paper, to which I responded (having been personally addressed on the matter). I actually agree that these topics diverted from the main topic, but they were not my diversions.

     Do you consider ad hominems to be addressing the issue of Petr Chylek’s letter, Grant?

114. So what comes next? Let us stop making unjustified claims and exaggerated projections about the future even if the editors of some eminent journals are just waiting to publish them. Let us admit that our understanding of the climate is less perfect than we have tried to make the public believe. Let us drastically modify or temporarily discontinue the IPCC. Let us get back to work.

     The editor who published Chylek’s work on climate sensitivity was…Chylek.

     And he has his own problems with unjustified claims.

115. Simon:

     ‘Wrong from point 1″?

     I said over 80 stations. Wang says 42 station *PAIRS*. that’s 84. How am I wrong? He says the net average effect is 0.1 deg. That is what I said he said. What exactly is your point? I know it’s hard for you to stay focused which is why I used numbered items to help you along.

     I asked from you the same thing I would ask from Phil Jones which is this: if Keenan is wrong, just produce the data Keenan says was not and still is not available or evidence of its existence. It’s a really simple issue.

     I have also seen the email where Wang vents to Jones (#1188508827) and strategizing about the timing and IPCC reports. What I don’t get is why he and Jones did not simply produce the data? Would that not have been the direct and easy way to go and would that not have ended the matter right away?

     And by the way, I only offered this Wang example as an imitation of your style of responding–I thought you would get that. The Simon approach is this: when behavior of an alarmist is under scrutiny toss out an accusation against a skeptic (preferably Watts or McIntyre) and then charge hypocrisy because the latter charge was not developed as fully or at the same time. It is tiresome, isn’t it?

     So given your bogus reframing of the first point and the failure to address any other specifics I assume you concede the rest of my points in #27392 and we can move on.

116. George Tobin (Comment#27562)

     “How am I wrong?”

     Your statement here:

     1) Wang (and Jones) claimed to rely on data from over 80 stations selected because those stations were not moved nor otherwise in need of adjustment during the 3 decade period under study.

     Wang’s description, from his paper:

     “selected stations have relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times over this period.”

     Go figure out the meaning of relatively few, then you may understand why your statement is wrong.

     I asked from you the same thing I would ask from Phil Jones which is this: if Keenan is wrong, just produce the data Keenan says was not and still is not available or evidence of its existence. It’s a really simple issue.

     What? I guess you really don’t understand this. Where did I say the data was available to be produced? I have no idea about it – it’s probably in China somewhere.

117. There were two papers involved in my allegation against Wei-Chyung Wang: Jones et al. [Nature, 1990] and Wang et al. [GRL, 1990]. (Copies of the papers are linked to in the references section of my web page on this.)
     
     The two papers used the same Chinese data, but they came to different conclusions about urbanization effects. Jones et al. is the paper that is relied upon by the IPCC. As to why the IPCC ignored Wang et al., you would have to ask them. Perhaps it is because Jones was one of the two coordinating lead authors of the chapter on modern temperatures.
     
     Simon Evans commented on my allegation against Wang on the Scientific Misconduct Blog, and he raises that again here. To partially recap, I wrote a document entitled “Wei-Chyung Wang fabricated some scientific claims“. That document is publically available on my site. It also constitutes the text of the formal allegation that I submitted to Wang’s university. I have also published a peer-reviewed paper that says “I have formally alleged that [Wang] committed fraud in some of his research”, and cites the submitted document. And I state similarly on my web site. Yet Simon Evans has repeatedly demanded that I answer this: “Are you now insinuating that the data was entirely fabricated?” I did not see the point of answering that, or Evans’ other questions. But in case there is any doubt, I will add this: Wang’s data was substantially fabricated.
     
     George Tobin made some summaries that I thought were clear and helpful.
     
     kuhnkat (#27293) raises an important issue, i.e. that it might not be Wang who was responsible, but someone else. One of the leaked documents comprised Wang’s defense, submitted to the Investigation Committee. That document makes it possible to address the issue (better than in my original allegation); please see http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5620/b19.htm
     
     Regarding the university’s investigation of my allegation, I was not interviewed: contrary to the university’s policies, federal regulations, and natural justice. I was allowed to comment on the report of the investigation, but I was not allowed to see the report: yes, you read that correctly. In one of the leaked e-mails, Tom Wigley said that the university, by acting in such a way, “really is asking for trouble”. In my view, such actions invalidate the university’s investigation.

118. Simon Evans:

     As I understand you evolving attack, it is no longer about the amount of measured UHI, no longer about the number of stations but the issue of how many moving stations.

     You are correct that my statement was inaccurate. I said that Wang claimed no stations had been moved whereas he did admit that a few had.

     What I should have said is that Wang claimed only few stations involved any adjustments for instrumentation or moves when in fact of the 35 stations for which there was publicly available data (not the missing 49) at least half of those underwent significant changes including a move of over 30 miles, which would mean that Wang materially misrepresented the data.

     So I inaccurately said Wang misrepresented the data in a small way when in fact the misrepresentations were more significant.
     Thank you for pointing that out. Now the record is clear.

     Now if you could point me to the missing data that Wang and Jones produced to refute the criticism I will happily apologize to Dr Wang. If not, then stop bloviating about Wang being mistreated.

119. George Tobin,

     Well, we’re making progress. But you still haven’t quite got the hang of “relatively few” adjustments to location, instrumentation and TOB.

     A move of thirty miles, for example could be relatively insignificant compared to a significant instrumental or TOB change. In fact , one hundred moves of thirty miles could be insignificant in comparison. Capisce?

     We cannot know whether the ‘relatively few’ selection process was good without the data regarding those stations which were not selected. Which we do not have. So do I think that is evidence of Wang presenting judgements which he asks us to accept on trust, which we cannot check out? Yes, I certainly do. Do I think that means he engaged in fraud? No, I certainly do not. I don’t know the ins and outs of access to the Chinese data at the time, nor of retrospective access to that data (I suspect that’s not possible).

     This was a study from nineteen years ago. It pointed out UHI influence on large conurbations (contrary to your assertion that it was making a ‘no UHI’ case). The data is no longer accessible, if it ever was. That’s not so good. Let’s move on and do better studies which have better transparency, yes?

     I have pointed out to you Keeenan’s distortion of the statements from the university, upon which you have made no comment. That’s interesting, I guess. Wang has been exonerated by the enquiry. Still, without further evidence, you wish to continue to assert charges of ‘fraud’ over this very possibly poorly worded and very possibly constrained by available (in terms of publicly publishable information) study.

     So, that’s your interest, a nineteen year old allegation against a paper which found substantial UHI influence (entirely contrary to your original false assertion). Have fun, George – I’m more interested in what’s happening now than in these scurrilous attempts to discredit work from so long ago.

120. Ugh. I remember having the same discussion about “relatively few” over at Climate Audit when McIntyre posted on this.

121. Simon:

     I never had any interest in a “19 year-old study.”

     I tossed off the reference to Wang in a purely Simon-Evans-style tangent response.

     You then with a ringing but unfocused defense of Wang and expressly attacked my integrity. After all that, you now wind up saying that even if the data were even *more* discrepant that would still be OK (?!) and why shouldn’t we just trust good ole Dr Wang and besides, who has access to all that old Chinese data anyway, ??!!…

     Well, that was kind of the point all along, the bit about not actually having or producing that data.

     …”Trust me…how dare you wonder where I came up with those results.”

     Which may be the Team motto for some. The theory is so good it really doesn’t matter how we develop the data, methods and the science. And those who question it are bad people.

     BTW, I don’t care about any Keenan statement about what others may have said. It is irrelevant. I don’t care. I rather prefer to stay on point.

     It you want the last word here, have at it. I am quite through with this thread. Cheers.

122. “I tossed off the reference to Wang ”

     hehe!

     (I realize I am confirming many posters’ views that I am juvenile. But still, hehe!)

123. Nick Stokes,

     that wasn’t an interpretation. That was a whiff!!

     So, now you disagree with using standard tools that the modellers use??

     HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

124. Francis [27483]
     Fact: there is thermometer [no proxy] data right back to the early 1600s. In Britain in particular there are continuous, verifiable and accepted thermometer records dating back to the mid 1600s.

     The very notion that the MWP somehow has to be “global” to be real, is in fact the mirror image of what we have been asked to accept by the AGW/ACC camp, namely that we are dealing with “global warming”. This is scientifically seen in itself a fallacy, as meaningful as calculating the average/mean or any other statistical value in the NYC telephone book [or any other big city telephone book for that matter].

     The basic notion of “global warming” is the very prerequisite for being able to blame humans for ACC. This is complete nonsense.

     To the point: does anyone have proxy temperature data for central Australia for the period 1000-1700? If so, pls provide so we can all understand whether or not there was a “global” MWP or not.

125. Simon [27496]
     There clearly is no sense in reasoning with you, for you are [somehow] always right [in your own mind at least].

     You might benefit from making a serious effort and produce that sucking sound of relief, and enjoy the pleasures of seeing day light again. Should you succeed, have a look at CA and SteveM’s posting today of the IPCC meeting notes of 1999 where the entire Briffa issue and how to tweak and manage the “decline” are actually minuted. East African “cooking”…
     If that does not cause you to realize and acknowledge that we are dealing with “man-made” [in the fraudulent sense of the term] global warming/climate change, nothing will.
     When a lion stares you in the face and you somehow think you are dealing with a kitten, you are missing something, vitally.

126. Actually, participation in the IPCC should be discontinued simply because the IPCC’s job is defined as being focused on human-caused effects. Climate scientists should be studying how all of climate works, not forced to focus on one cause (several meanings of “cause” apply).

127. “Molon Labe (Comment#27220) December 9th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
     Here is a response to that email which was forwarded to me. The author is described as “in the climate community (although retired)”.

     Thank you for this, but I must object to the science in two of your points.

     1. climate scientists intent on “proving” that recent warming exceeds previous warming in the past thousand years or so are on shaky scientific ground.

     While it would be good to have more proxies especially in the SH, we now have ample evidence that the so-called MWP was not as warm as now.”

     Excuse me we do not! Please stop repeating that mantra … ok Mann and Briffa and Jones and … and … and… may have manipulated the data (normally called fraud)… but a whole lotta other studies agree with that fraudulent data.

     Question if that were so… why did they have to manipulate the data?

     “Take for example …Lonnie Thompson’s mountain glacier work and you have very convincing evidence on this point. ..”

     There seems to be a problem here too.. and in fact his reconstruction does not show the MWP as cooler than today.
     http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/calibrating-dr-thompsons-z-mometer/

     3 out of 5… but the other two are ok… yeah sure …

128. tetris (Comment#27697) December 12th, 2009 at 12:12 am
     “To the point: does anyone have proxy temperature data for central Australia for the period 1000-1700? If so, pls provide so we can all understand whether or not there was a “global” MWP or not.”

     Not Central Australia no but the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution apparently found evidence of the MWP in a Temperature Reconstruction from Indo-Pacific Warm Pool, which is the largest body of warm water in the world, and, as a result, it is the largest source of heat and moisture to the global atmosphere, and an important component of the planet’s climate. Just north of Australia. Close enough?

     Also to help you “understand whether or not there was a “global” MWP or not”, how about data published by 772 individual scientists from 458 separate research institutions in 42 different countries, which support it?
     Here: http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/
     and here: http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

     Please explore with an open mind

129. PS tetris (Comment#27697) December 12th, 2009 at 12:12 am
     – The Medieval warm period spans the period AD 800 to 1300 (1300 to 800 years ago)

130. Cook et al. 2002. Evidence for a ‘Medieval Warm Period’ in a 1,100 year tree-ring reconstruction of past austral summer temperatures in New Zealand. GRL 29

     The occurrence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) in the Southern Hemisphere is uncertain because of the paucity of well-dated, high-resolution paleo-temperature records covering the past 1,000 years. We describe a new tree-ring reconstruction of Austral summer temperatures from the South Island of New Zealand, covering the past 1,100 years. This record is the longest yet produced for New Zealand and shows clear evidence for persistent above-average temperatures within the interval commonly assigned to the MWP. Comparisons with selected
     temperature proxies from the Northern and Southern Hemispheres confirm that the MWP was highly variable in time and space. Regardless, the New Zealand temperature reconstruction supports the global occurrence of the MWP.

Comments are closed.