Dr Edward R Long’s disturbing study of 48 urban rural pairs USA

Download the original pdf for yourself – it is only 14 pages and very readable – Dr Long is ex NASA.
This study looks at NCDC raw and adjusted temperature trends and finds that rural data has been adjusted warmer to meet urban trends. It would be great if somebody had the time to check what Jones/UKMO has for Dr Long’s stations (which he lists). I predict now Jones/UKMO will treat them quite differently.

Remember, four years back I showed that GISS was doing something similar – read Dr Jim Hansen’s email.

USA Dept of Energy Jones et al 1986 350 pages station documentation now online in pdf

It has finally happened, many thanks to a volunteer in California who through the inter-library loan system found a copy of the Martin Marietta 1991 edition DoE book published by CDIAC – and has scanned the entire book.

The Jones et al Northern Hemisphere TR022 book with station documentation details, including corrections is now available as four pdf files. The much shorter TR027 Southern Hemisphere book has been online in html form for several weeks.

Can I just make the point that this is the only time Jones et al published station documentation details. It was not done for later iterations and is still not being done by the UKMO.

These books are witness to the processes operating at the birth of what we now know as IPCC AGW. Information contained in TR022 and TR027 will assist people who are curious to uncover what Jones et al have done with temperature data from their village, town, city, region, state or nation. What data they have examined, rejected, altered, truncated, corrected and finally USED – various versions of station data that Jones et al USED are available from 1991, 1994, 1999 to the current versions on the UKMO website.

Once investigators have a grip on the above they can then compare their timeseries to those produced by the GHCN, GISS and their own national weather service.

We are told that all of the station data listed in Appendices A can not now be found at CRU – these contain the data rejected by Jones et al.

Which brings me to one of the great misinformation campaigns in climate science. That is the attempt by CRU and Jones to direct investigators to the GHCN station data in lieu of Jones et al/CRU station data. The two groups conduct distinctly different processes on station data and researchers will seldom get close to understanding what Jones/CRU have done by relying on GHCN station versions. The GHCN is riddled with its own multitude of errors and is more than a subject for study in itself.

I look forward to hearing from people making their own investigations of Jones/CRU data from their cities and regions.

What about the Jones et al co-authors ?

Except for his 1994 update, Professor Jones tended to publish with many co-authors.

I see that the BBC says, Phil Jones, the professor behind the “Climategate” affair, has admitted some of his decades-old weather data was not well enough organised.

Well, I am asking myself, what about all these co-authors, presumably some of them worked on the data too, otherwise why would they be co-authors ? Is their data too, “..not well enough organised..” ? They are all from big instos – did none of them park a copy on their HDD ?

Or is co-authoring on this scale just an exercise in influence peddling and mutual career building – facilitating a network of supportive mates to ease the way in the peer review process.

I am curious to see if anybody else has thought about this.

Not just ClimateGate – we must remember the entire paradigm of green lies over thirty years

I noticed this over at Anthony Watts – thanks Anthony – do not know how you keep up the pace. The original article is at National Review Online – it hits the nail on the head when it says; “Exaggeration and alarmism have been a chronic weakness of environmentalism since it became an organized movement in the 1960s”.

Every ecological problem was instantly transformed into a potential world-ending crisis, from the population bomb to the imminent resource depletion of the “limits to growth” fad of the 1970s to acid rain to ozone depletion, always with an overlay of moral condemnation of anyone who dissented from environmental correctness.

With global warming, the environmental movement thought it had hit the jackpot — a crisis sufficiently long-range that it could not be falsified and broad enough to justify massive political controls on resource use at a global level.”

Full article copied below.

Note for Australians – this item is a treasure – with ABC professional Jonathan Holmes wriggling and squirming and misleading – as he tries to interpret ClimateGate for his pinko ABC audience – well worth a quiet 15 minute read. Text kept way down below.
Continue reading Not just ClimateGate – we must remember the entire paradigm of green lies over thirty years

Some essential history of IPCC global warming from 20 years ago.

Over at the matchless blog Wattsupwiththat:

Look for two comments by Mohib (21:33:01) on 1st Feb – I thought Mohib’s questions were important enough to try and explain the history .

Jones et al 1986 did indeed reject 38 stations from their Northern Hemisphere study. Note UHI not actually mentioned in the 1986 Table 1 – but no doubt covered under “non-climatic warming trends” – so a nuance there compounded by PDJ ref to “affected by urbanization” in the ClimateGate mails 1184779319.txt link at Watts.

Nth Hem Journal paper pdf downloadable here

TR022 Nth Hem documentation book partly online with 2 tables showing the breakdowns of their station numbers in each homogenization category.
38 stations UHI affected out of the thousands of NH cities is somewhat laughable and the paper should have been sent back by the editor or reviewers. But Jones could say that other UHI affected data were caught up in other checks of his and rejected for other reasons, eg. Category D maybe.

BTW Geoff Jenkins was one of the original 1990 IPCC authors and you might expect would know these things.
In the case of the Jones et al 1986 Southern Hemisphere Journal paper downloadable and TR027 book fully online.

Jones et al found only 3 (yes three) UHI affected stations to reject. Even more surreal than 38 – 3 out of what, 120 plus major cities in the Sth Hem.

So there are a few “nuances” to comprehend in the statements such as “On the one hand in 1986 he knows UHI affects the temperature..”.

IMHO Jones et al 1986 spoke and did less than the bare minimum required to be able to claim that they had adequately dealt with the UHI in global T data.

There was presumably some disquiet remaining in climate circles after the 1988 publication of Wood’s critique of Jones et al 1986. Otherwise, how do you explain the need for the Jones et al 1990 Letter to Nature at al ?

In the 1990 Letter to Nature they compared purportedly rural series from 3 regions, Western USSR, Eastern China, Eastern Australia – with their grid point trends from those same regions and claimed to prove that negligible UHI effect remained in their grid point trends – a conclusion the IPCC and UKMO has quoted ever since.

In fact what happened IMHO (and I did share in a work checking what they did in Eastern Australia) – was that their Rural series contained significant UHI amplification in the trend – hence they were able to demonstrate tolerable agreement with their grid points trends which also carry UHI contamination.

So Mohib, when you say above; “But then in his 1990 paper he takes the position with Wang that UHI is not a factor in temperatures.” Can you see now that is not a fair summing up of the situation.

In fact Jones et al 1990 was purporting to demonstrate that Rural series had similar trends to his grid point series – ergo by their reasoning there can not be significant UHI effect in either. I hope that that explain it clearer.

Jones et al 1990 is now further unraveling helped along by Doug Keenans persistence and events revealed in Climategate emails. That all these prominent co-authors lent their names to the shoddy 1990 Letter to Nature is a classic case of IPCC science at work.

Is the US Dept of Energy still funding Professor Phil Jones ?

We have known for decades that the DoE has funded Jones et al research from day one – probably in 1979; download the original papers and see the DoE contacts acknowledged.
I have not yet found out what the annual payments were from 1979-1994 but we know from DoE web pages that payments were in the 175-$200,000 range each year for the 12 years from 1995-2006.
Register Number: ER62601
Title: Climate Data Analysis and Models for the Study of Natural Variability and Anthropogenic Change
Principal Investigator: Jones, Phil D
Institution: University of East Anglia
Institution Address: School of Environmental Sciences
Awarded Amount to Date and B&R Code :
FY 2006 $178 k KP120101
FY 2005 $175 k KP120101
FY 2004 $173 k KP120101
FY 2003 $180 k KP120101
FY 2002 $180 k KP120101
FY 2001 $180 k KP120101
FY 2000 $180 k KP120101
FY 1999 $174 k KP120101
FY 1998 $170 k KP120101
The three previous years are at this page (I have cut out years post 1997 which recorded zero or nominal funding.
Register Number: ER60397
Title: Detection of Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change
Principal Investigator: Jones, Phil D
Institution: University of East Anglia
Institution Address: School of Environmental Sciences
Principal Investigator: Wigley, Tom M
Institution: University of East Anglia
Institution Address: School of Environmental Sciences
Awarded Amount to Date and B&R Code :
FY 1997 $200 k KP120101
FY 1996 $198 k KP120101
FY 1995 $192 k KP120101
We also know that Brohan et al 2006 acknowledges grant DE-FG02-98ER62601 so it is likely the DoE has funded Jones et al post 2006. I have asked questions of the DoE but I think it is time all this information was widely known.
In my opinion it is vital the DoE cease funding Jones et al, CRU or the UKMO directly or indirectly. I believe that in time this 30 year waste of USA taxpayers money will be seen as an example of the WRONG model for the funding of science.
Remember that the DoE has provided this circa $5million + of funding amazingly WITHOUT requiring that Phil Jones provide data back to the DoE.
Can you believe that !!
Here is an extract from an email from the DoE to me from October 2005.
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005
Subject: Re: Station data required for 1856-2004 Jones et al
Dear Warwick,
Unfortunately, our data center does not have any of the six
requested items. You will need to contact Phil directly. I spoke today with the DOE program manager who indicated Phil was not obligated under the conditions of past or present DOE proposal awards to provide these items to CDIAC.
I regret we cannot furnish the materials you seek.