This map of Southern Hemisphere IPCC / Jones 91 stations colour coded for population gives some idea of the pervasive UHI contamination in IPCC trends.
Bureau Chief Statement on Global Temperature Station Numbers
When asked at the National Press Club on the 13th., September to comment on what confidence he had in the Jones et al global temperature graph, Dr. J. Zillman of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) said in part, "In the stations that are used, the thousand or so stations that are used around the world to produce that graph.........". (my emphasis)
It so happens that Professor Jones in his 1994 paper used over
three thousand four hundred stations to produce his global
trends.
The Jones et al 1985, 1986, 1991 compilations used just over 1500
stations.
Readers will have to form their own views taking into account normal English usage as to whether "...thousand or so.." could lead listeners to encompass a figure in excess of three thousand.
The question and response by Dr. Zillman are below.
Transcript by BYTEXT COMMUNICATIONS PTY LTD
For full transcript in Word plus ppt
diagrams, 515KB zip file download.
National Press Club Question to Dr Zillman 13/9/2000
(Journalist Unknown)
I have a two-part question, one about science and one about the
real world. As you would be aware, the sceptical body of opinion
on greenhouse seems to have been charging up over the last year
or so. I have been not bombarded but I get a fair bit of stuff
from the sceptics. I would like to put to you a quote from an
article that has been put to me coming off a researcher from
Melbourne, Warrick Hughes. This is a quote:
Hughes’ work now seems to prove conclusively that there is widespread contamination of the surface data by urban heat island effects. He has also identified glaring errors and discrepancies, particularly in the data on Siberia, which accounts for more than half the warming in the surface graphs.
I wonder if you can respond to that in particular, and in general the figures of the graph in slide three; how much confidence do you have in those figures?
Reply by Dr. Zillman
I will respond to the first question. The answer there is that there is an extremely high level of confidence in the trends shown in figure 3. There has been a huge effort over the past 20 years to remove all the contamination from the effects, such as the so-called urban heat island effect, from the data. In the stations that are used, the thousand or so stations that are used around the world to produce that graph, it is based also on sea temperatures over the ocean which have been measured very carefully by ships ever the last century where there is no urban heat island effect, the level of confidence is extremely high. All the contamination has been removed. There is remarkable agreement with the data from various sources including satellites. There was some earlier discrepancy but that is almost entirely removed. The level of confidence in the data is extremely high.
Comments on Dr Zillman's reply, my comments in bold.
I will respond to the first question. The answer there is that there is an extremely high level of confidence in the trends shown in figure 3. Many sceptics would disagree; NASA satellites (from 1979) and weather balloon data ( from late 1950's) collected in most countries do not find the warming seen in the Jones et al surface temperature trends.
There has been a huge effort over the past 20 years to remove all the contamination from the effects, such as the so-called urban heat island effect, from the data. I have only researched global temperature records for nine years but this statement puzzles me. The only serious effort I am aware of to deal with the UHI in global databases is that by Dr Jim Hansen and his team at GISS / NASA, who publish on their web site urban warming corrected data from stations with populations nearby over 9,000. I have not seen these data used by the IPCC or published as global trends. On the bottom of this page is appended a list of 274 cities with populations from 50,000 and up from the Jones 1994 data. Only cities starting A through to C have been sorted out. None of these cities would be adequately adjusted for urban effects.
In the stations that are used, the thousand or so stations
that are used around the world to produce that graph, Comment
above.
it is based also on sea temperatures over the ocean which have
been measured very carefully by ships ever the last century
Raw Sea Surface Temperature (SST) data is so riddled with
major and poorly understood inhomogeneities that the corrections
needed to render results usable are larger than the derived
trends.
Addition Feb, 2001. Sorry
John but David Parker has recently announced the UKMO has interpreted SST's wrongly
for decades.
where there is no urban heat island effect, There is now because the IPCC uses SST data where corrections have been applied to make a neater fit to the Jones land trends.
the level of confidence is extremely high. You and IPCC people can assert what you like.
All the contamination has been removed. One of the most puzzling statements I have ever read. Even Professor Jones does not claim this for his own work.
There is remarkable agreement with the data from various sources including satellites. So much agreement that NASA have just started a web site to address the divergence between satellite plus balloon and surface data.
There was some earlier discrepancy but that is almost
entirely removed. The level of confidence in the data is
extremely high.
Keep on John.
This map of Southern Hemisphere IPCC / Jones 91
stations colour coded for population gives some idea of the
pervasive UHI contamination in IPCC trends.
List of 274 Cities from A to C
I assume that when Dr Zillman says, "All the contamination has been removed.", he is including all the urban heat island contamination in these cities listed from A to C and all unlisted from D to Z.
This list of cities with names starting A to C has been
filtered from data files available on the CRU web
site. Then compared name by name with stations
classified with population plus 50,000 in the V2 GHCN dat
set. So, if a city is used by Jones and not by GHCN
and if I did not recognize the name, then then it would not
be included. It must be obvious that 1000 + cities of more
than 50,000 population have been used in the Jones 1994 series if
names from D to Z are counted.
In some cases state initials interfere in the list, where a name
is in twice it is because two stations were used.
AACHEN,ABADAN,ABERDEEN/DYCE,ABIDJAN,VI,ABILENE,ACAPULCO
ACCRA,(WAS 654490),ADANA,INCIRLIK,ADDIS
ABABA,ADELAIDE,AFYON
AGADIR,AGEDABIA,AGRA,AHHADABAD,AKITA,AKOLA,AKTJUBINSK,AL
BIRMINGHAM/MUNI
AL,MONTGOMERY/DANNE,ALBANY/NY,ALBERT PARK
ALBORG,ALDAN,ALEGRETE,ALEPPO,ALEXANDRIA,ALLAHABAD/BAMHRAULI
ALMA-ATA,ALMERIA,ALOR,STAR,AMBERLEY,AMMAN
AIRPORT,AMOY
AMRITSAR/RAJASANSI,ANCHORAGE,ANCONA,ANGERS,ANKARA/CENTRAL
ANNABA,ANQING,ANTALYA,ANTOFAGASTA,AOMORI,AR,LITTLE
ROCK/ADAM,ARACAJU,ARAXA,ARICA,ARKHANGELSK,ARMAVIR,ARNSBERG
ASHEVILLE,ASMARA,ASTRAHAN,ASUNCION/CITY,ASWAN,ATBARA,ATHENS
ATLANTA,ATLANTIC,CITY,AUCKLAND,AUCKLAND,AUGSBURG,AUSTIN,AZ
PHOENIX/SKY,HARB,AZ,TUCSON/INTL,AZ,YUMA/INTL,AP,AZUL,
BADAJOZ,BAGHDAD,BAGOTVILLE,BAHIA,BLANCA,AERO
BAHRAIN/MUHARRAQ,BAIA,MARE,BAKU,BALBOA,HEIGHTS
BALHAS/BALKAHASH,BALIKPAPAN/SEPINGGAN,BANDUNG,BANGALORE
BANGKOK,BANGUI,BANMETHUOT,BAO,DING,BARCELONA,BARI,PALESE
BARNAUL,BARQUISIMETO,BASEL/BINNINGEN,BASRAH,BATNA,BATOURI
BAYREUTH,BECHAR,BEDFORD,BEERSHEVA,BEGAMPET,BEIHNG
BEIRUT(BEYROUTH),BEJAIA,BELEM,BELFAST/ALDERGROVE,A,BELGAUM
BELIZE,/,LANDIVER,BELIZE,I.A.,BELLINGHAM,2N,BELO,HORIZONTE,BENGBU
BENGHAZI,BENGKULU,BENINA,BEOGRAD,BERGEN/FREDERIKSBERG
BERKELEY,BERLIN,BIALYSTOK,BIDSTON,BIKANER,BILLINGS,BINGHAMTON
BIRMINGHAM/ELMDON,AP,BISMARCK,BISSAU,AIRPORT,BITOLA
BLAGOVESCENSK,BLOEMFONTEIN,BLUE,HILL,OBS.,BOBO,DIOULASSO
BODAJBO,BODO,BOGOSLOWSK,BOGOTA/ELDORADO,BOGUCAR,BOISE
BOLOGNA,BOMBAY/COLABA,BOMBAY/SANTACRUZ,BORDEAUX/MERIGNAC
BOSTON,BOUAKE,BOURNEMOUTH/HURN,APT,BRAMPTON,BRANDON
BRANTFORD,BRASILIA,BRATISLAVA/IVANKA,BRATSK,BRAUNSCHWEIG
BRAZZAVILLE,BREMEN,BREST,BREST/GUIPAVAS,BRINDISI,BRISBANE,APT
BRJANSK,BRNO/TURANY,BROWNSVILLE,BUCARAMANGA
BUCARESTI/FILARET,BUCURESTI/BANEASA,BUDAPEST/LORINC
BUDAPEST/MET'LOGIA,BUENOS,AIRES/OBS,CEN,BUFFALO,BULAWAYO
/GOETZ,OBS.,BURGOS/VILLAFRIA,BUSHEHR,CA,BAKERSFIELD,CA,STOCKTON
CAGLIARI/ELMAS,CAIRO,CALCUTTA/ALIPORE,CALCUTTA/DUM,DUM
CALGARY,INT'L,A,CALI/CALIPUERTO,CALIPUERTO,AP.,CALLAO,AP
CAMAGUEY,CAMAGUEY,CAMBRIDGE,CAMPECHE,(CAMP),CAMPO,DE
MARTE/LIMA,CAMPO,GRANDE,CAMPO,GRANDE/AP,CANBERRA,CAPE,TOWN
/D,F,MALAN,CAPE,TOWNE/ROYAL,OBS,CARACAS,CARACAS,CARACAS/LA
CARLOTA,CARDZOU,CARTAGENA,CASA,BLANCA,CASABLANCA,CASEMENT
AP.,CATAMARCA,AERO,CATAMARCA,AERO,CATANIA,CEBU,CELINOGRAD
CHALONS,CHANGCHUN,CHANGSHA,CHAOYANG,CHARLESTON
CHATTANOOGA,CHENGDE,CHENGTU,CHERBOURG
CHERBOURG-MAUPERTUS,CHEYENNE,CHEYENNE,WSFO,CHIANGMAI
CHICAGO,O'HARE,CHICLAYO,CHICOUTIMI,CHIHUAHUA,UNIV.
DE CHILEKA
CHIMBOTE,CHIN-CHOU,CHITTAGONG,CITY,CHITTAGONG/PATENGA,
CHONQING,CHOSHI,CHRISTCHURCH,CHRISTCHURCH,CINCINNATI
CIPOLLETTI,CITA,CIUDAD BOLIVAR,CIUDAD
OBREGON,CIUDAD OF MEXICO
CLERMONT,FERRAND,CLUJ,CO,COLORADO SPRINGS CO
DENVER/STAPLETON CO,GRAND JUNCTION/W,COATZACOALCOS
COCHABAMBA,COIMBRA,COLOMBO,COLONIA,COLUMBIA,COLUMBUS
COMANDANTE ESPORA,COMODORO
RIVADARIA,CONAKRY,CONCEPTION
CONCORDIA,CONCORDIA,CONSTANTA,CONSTANTINE,COPENHAGEN
CORDOBA,CORDOBA AERO,CORK AIRPORT,CORO
WAS,804070,CORPUS
CHRISTI,CORRIENTES,CORUMBA,COTONOU,COX'S
BAZAR,COX'S BAZAR
BANGLAD,CRISTOBAL,CT,BRIDGEPORT
CT,HARTFORD/BRADLEY,CUCUTA
CUIABA,CURICO,CURITIBA,CURUG,CUTTACK,CUZCO,(KAYRA)
CZESTOCHOWA
Comment on BoM attitude to Urban Warming
Effects
Over ten years ago senior scientists in the BoM defined urban
heat islands in all Australian capital cities yet failed to
comment on the Jones et al use of all of those capital city data
to contribute to the Australian component of "global
warming".
See earlier BoM page.
Posted 4, October, 2000
Updated, 20, Feb., 2001
© 2000 Warwick Hughes,
globalwarming-news.com
You read it first here.
Back to BoM page
Back to Front Page