USA Dept of Energy Jones et al 1986 350 pages station documentation now online in pdf
February 20th, 2010 by Warwick HughesIt 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.
Posted in IPCC, Jones et al, Surface Record | 22 Comments »
February 20th, 2010 at 9:39 pm
Thank you for the opportunity to actually DO something instead of sitting around whining. Let me know if there are any other basic tasks where I might be able to contribute!!
Vernon
February 20th, 2010 at 10:10 pm
Warwick, Thanks again for your efforts.
No doubt you have seen Roy Spencer’s post today on WUWT, Spencer: developing a new satellite based surface temperature set . I would be interested in your comment.
I looked that the link for the Southern Hemisphere you put above. For Tasmania there are three stations listed Hobart, Hobart (probably Hobart airport at Richmond) and Launceston airport. None of these are representative of Tasmania and additionally have heat island effects. For Queensland five of the nine stations are on the coast and have surrounding populations of >50,000. Not one of the stations could be regarded as a rural location without some development which would affect temperature.
The comment about Sydney on page P60 that the station moved in 1963 and there are no details seems very strange. They must not have bothered to ask. Could I ask what is the meaning of the correction factors (top page 61 also for Adelaide P60) and are the comparisons valid? Why not leave the original data? I note at Sydney one of the supposed changes was from a height of 138ft to 42m which is actually no change but maybe an excuse for applying a correction factor.
It is interesting that Sydney has data from 1840, Adelaide from 1839 and Hobart from 1859.
Best wishes to all.
February 21st, 2010 at 12:10 am
I looked at Sydney almost a decade ago to figure out exactly what Jones et al did. It is a revealing story which you would not suspect if you had read the TR027 book. I have not yet got to looking at where Sydney is with the latest UKMO/CRU release.
February 21st, 2010 at 5:38 am
Warwick and Vernon, good one guys, but I am back travelling and doing the field exploration thing so internetting will be minimal. Make sure you finish it within our life time Warwick! But we need it before the election this year!
February 21st, 2010 at 11:04 pm
I was checking out the temps at Broken Hill and came across some anomalies which I suppose is everywhere throughout the BOM records.
On the raw data for Broken Hill (Patton St) I noted that the annual average temp for 1914 is 25.9C.
www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=36&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_stn_num=047007
Australian high-quality climate site data for the same w/station shows nothing like that.
www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=maxT&area=nsw&station=047007&period=annual
So raw data shows 1914 warmer than anything this decade but does not show up on the graph. Is this what they call ‘homogeneity adjustment”?
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Dear Sir;
Undoubtedly I could find the answer with a sufficiently diligent search, but I would prefer to save that energy for a deepdive into the data.
Am I likely to find anything useful about the purportedly rural Chinese stations of the controversial ‘jones et al’ 1990 paper on the necessity for UHI correction?
I expect that the station lists have not changed dramatically over time.
Thanks in advance for any guidance you might kindly offer.
RR
February 24th, 2010 at 3:41 am
WSH may have his own comments but to get you started look at this wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/01/climategate-intensifies-jones-and-wang-hid-chinese-station-data-issues/ Then follow links to the peer reviewed paper THE FRAUD ALLEGATION AGAINST SOME CLIMATIC RESEARCH OF WEI-CHYUNG WANG by Douglas Keenan in Energy & Environment Vol 18 No7+8, 2007 pp985-995
February 24th, 2010 at 7:24 am
[...] Jones data documentation now online [...]
February 24th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Gidday RuhRoh,
Thanks for your comment on the blog, sorry to be slow replying.
Will try and be useful.
[1] – some help finding CHINA stations in the pdf book I posted this week.
The stations Jones et al 1986 actually USED are in Appendix B in the original book, pages A236-A237 – which = pages 14-15 of the fourth pdf part of the book, TR022APPB.pdf
Remember all Jones stations are listed in order of WMO number – China is in the 500′s.
You can get those station data from the first files for download at my page;
As a roadmap start with the inventory files – 1 for each hemisphere.
[2] To see all China stations Jones et al 1986 CONSIDERED – these make up the large Appendix A in the book and run from pages A110-A118. – which = pdf pages 82-90 in pdf file TR022APPA1.pdf
Good luck matching those with any other lists you might have.
[3] At my data download page above there are later iterations of Jones station data (1994-1999) that may cast light on the issue of exactly what happened in the 1990 Letter to Nature. Then of course we have the latest UKMO offerings – 2 versions so far.
[4] For a few years now I have had a page on the Letter to Nature;
If you scroll down the page you will see I have pasted a lot of URLs and post headlines from ClimateAudit from those times Steve was exploring these issues – you may get some clues there.
Back to my page on the Letter to Nature above, under Eastern China you will see a link to;
“84 stations in Jones et al 42 urban / rural pairs.”
where I take you through my attempts to find all the Wang station pairs.
February 26th, 2010 at 6:04 am
This post on WUWT is relevant to this discussion wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/26/a-new-paper-comparing-ncdc-rural-and-urban-us-surface-temperature-data/#more-16726
Follow the links to download the paper. In summary it is saying that raw rural station data shows only a small increase (0.13C/century), raw urban station data shows a larger trend due to an UHI effect since 1980(0.77C/century), the rural stations have been adjusted to match the urban trend (0.64C/century), the adjusted urban data is the same and US temperature trends are entirely due UHI in urban stations and the adjustment wrongly made for rural stations.
March 3rd, 2010 at 4:01 am
Here is Halls Creek for jones 1991
members.westnet.com.au/rippersc/hcjones1990.jpg
I notice He picked 1899 only out of the old station which as I have said before is 12 kims and 63 metres downhill from the current one.
March 3rd, 2010 at 4:28 am
Here is the 1999 version
members.westnet.com.au/rippersc/hcjones1999.jpg
There has been some adjustment in 1the 1950′s & 1960′s
March 3rd, 2010 at 6:47 am
Here is Kalgoorlie
members.westnet.com.au/rippersc/kaljones1990.jpg
Note that the Jones interpretation is a combination of two stations after 1941.
He also used Southern Cross (~200km away for 1895-1899)leaving a 42 year gap.
It would have been simpler to just use the entire Southern Cross record IMHO.
members.westnet.com.au/rippersc/southernX.jpg
March 3rd, 2010 at 9:23 pm
Here is the Jones 1999 version for Kalgoorlie
Scatter gather
Line
Huge difference to the 1990 version ,
I did a rough calculation and conservatively I reckon that the previous Halls creek temps get extrapolated over more than 1M sqr kilometers or around 14% of Australia’s land area.
Warwick, is this the right place to put these?
March 3rd, 2010 at 10:08 pm
Here is the Jones figures for Southern Cross
I notice that global warming from 1990 to 1998 has caused Southern Cross the get over a degree colder in the 1890′s .
Do we know if this station was used in the 1999 gridded data?
March 4th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Appears Southern Cross finished in 1992. See at:
data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501946340000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Probably doesn’t fit the warming trend they need.
If you look at the raw data for SC you’ll find the hottest max temps in the pre-1930s period. See at:
www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=36&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_stn_num=012074
Looks as if the only station they are using in this area is Perth Airport. See at:
data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/findstation.py?datatype=gistemp&data_set=1&name=&world_map.x=609&world_map.y=306
But then again, that doesn’t look too good for them either. Although they may also have scrapped their ‘homogeneity adjusted’ data set recently like they did for Lismore. It may have been interesting to see if there readjusted Southern Cross data sets.
By the way, do you need to be a member of westnet to get those graphs?
March 4th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
I uploaded them to my personal webspace. You should be able to download them.
March 5th, 2010 at 9:08 pm
yes – southern cross was used in the grided data.
it covers 1895 – 1993.
adjustments made were:
12074 1021 1961 0 -0.3 -0.3 ordm*
12074 1021 1934 0 +0.7 +0.4 ordp
12074 1021 1914 1 -0.5 -0.1 frde
12074 1021 1913 1 -0.5 -0.1 frde
12074 1021 1912 1 -0.5 -0.1 frde
12074 1021 1911 1 -0.5 -0.1 frde
12074 1021 1902 0 -0.9 -0.5 ord
12074 1001 1973 0 -1.4 -1.4 ordm
12074 1001 1927 0 -0.4 -1.8 ord
based on this criteria.
Element (1021=min, 1001=max)
Year
Type (1=single years, 0=all previous years)
Adjustment
Cumulative adjustment
Reason : o= objective test
f= median
r= range
d= detect
documented changes : m= move
s= stevenson screen supplied
b= building
v= vegetation (trees, grass growing, etc)
c= change in site/temporary site
n= new screen
p= poor site/site cleared
u= old/poor screen or screen fixed
a= composite move
e= entry/observer/instument problems
i= inspection
t= time change
*= documentation unclear
March 6th, 2010 at 12:29 am
I am well aware of that janama. The Torak and Nicols adjustments in 1997 were done with the methodology espoused in The very Jones Papers we are checking so for now I am ignoring them.
I have updated the graphs above with “Change in 1961-1990 baseline period = x degrees ” and checked two more stations
Meekatharra
SG members.westnet.com.au/rippersc/meekajones1990sg.jpg
Line members.westnet.com.au/rippersc/meekajones1990sg.jpg
Strange as it is basically .8 deg colder.
That prompted Me to benchmark the 1961-1990 benchmark.
In 1999 that changes
SG members.westnet.com.au/rippersc/meekajones1999sg.jpg
Line members.westnet.com.au/rippersc/meekajones1999line.jpg
Again an adjustment in the early 1970′s (1971 0.4)as per Southern Cross (1972 0.7)
Then I took a look at Giles.
1990
SG members.westnet.com.au/rippersc/gilesjones1990.jpg
1999
members.westnet.com.au/rippersc/gilesjones1999sg.jpg
members.westnet.com.au/rippersc/gilesjones1999line.jpg
Not a lot to see here , both series are short , some adjustment to 1959 & 1960 and 1987 is missing
March 6th, 2010 at 3:12 am
Those adjustment codes look like they are from Torok and Nicholls.
If so you are talking about a BoM “value added” product – that does not – yet – feed into IPCC AGW trends.
Unlike, UKMO, CRU or Jones.
March 6th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
I have had a look at Geraldton.
The 1990 version just used 1961-1980 with a few years missing
members.westnet.com.au/rippersc/gerojones1990.jpg
The 1999 version get similar teatment to Kalgoorlie as there is a reverse UHI effect as the stations move from the Post office to the then Airfield.
members.westnet.com.au/rippersc/gerojones1999.jpg
members.westnet.com.au/rippersc/gerojones1999line.jpg
These adjustment are puzzling as both stations in Geraldton have been adjusted down.
March 14th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
Now I am really confused.
A bit of an update to Halls Creek (post 11)
I have downloaded the CRU2010 details that for Australia purport to be “Based on the original temperature observations sourced from records held by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology”.
Would this be the CLIMAT data?
To my surprise the Halls Creek data plotted thus.
members.westnet.com.au/rippersc/hccru2010.jpg
members.westnet.com.au/rippersc/hccru2010line.jpg
Notice that 2007-8-9 are lower and the early years are higher than the Bom figures and the trend from 1950 is actually downwards.
This also applies to Meekatharra although the trend is still upwards but reduced there.
members.westnet.com.au/rippersc/meekacru2010.jpg
members.westnet.com.au/rippersc/meekacru2010line.jpg
I thought I would analyse the Jones 1999 adjustment to Meekatharra by comparing the correlation over continuous periods of 11 years to the six closest stations that were reporting over the period.
members.westnet.com.au/rippersc/meekarsq.jpg
I think everyone would agree that those adjustments were non robust.