Talk about Phil Jones!

[Mike Davis]

Here are a couple of reports regarding the Jones position:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/vincent-gr ... epage=true

Excerpt:
But only recently did I realize that I had evidence of their fraud in my possession almost from the birth of my interest in the subject.

I had copies of these two papers in 1990:

Jones, P. D., P. Ya. Groisman, M. Coughlan, N. Plummer, W. C. Wang & T. R. Karl 1990. Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land, Nature 347 169- 172.

Wang, W-C, Z. Zeng, T. R Karl, 1990. Urban Heat Islands in China. Geophys. Res. Lett. 17, 2377-2380.

The first paper has been the major evidence presented by Jones in all of the IPCC reports to dismiss the influence of urban change on the temperature measurements, and also has been used as an excuse for the failure to mention most of the unequivocal evidence that such urban effects exist. The paper was even dragged out again for the 2007 IPCC report.

The second paper, which shared authors Wang and Karl from the first paper, used the very same data from China which the first paper used to demonstrate the absence of urban influence — yet instead concluded that same data to be proof of the existence of urban influence.

In 2007, the following paper exposed the whole business:

Keenan, D.”The Fraud Allegation Against Some Climatic Research of Wei-Chyug Wang. Energy and Environment, 18, 985-995.

and:
http://www.john-daly.com/guests/regional.htm

Excerpt:
Examination of the data shows that almost all of the 1901-1996 temperature rise for Russia/Soviet Union took place in one year, 1987 to 1988. Table 3 gives the details. The average rise for the whole of the region was 1.21°C which contributes 0.16°C to the Northern Hemisphere for that year, and 0.10°C to the Global temperature increase. Since the recorded temperature increase for the Globe is 0.02°C, this means that without the Russian figure, there would have been a fall of 0.08°C.
and:
Karl’s data show that there are large differences in the temperature change from 1901 and 1996 between different regions on the earth’s surface. Individual 5°x5° grids .ranged between -2.12°C in the Greenland Sea and +.4.06°C for Spitzbergen (only 1500 km away) Larger regions ranged from -0.46°C for Bolivia to +1.30°C for East Siberia.. One has to question whether studies based on only a few regions, for example those from ice cores or tree rings, can give an adequate estimate of global temperature change.

There is only a slight difference between the Northern and the Southern Hemisphere, but is this apparent agreement real? Only 31.4% of the Southern Hemisphere had acceptable measurements.

The most comprehensive series of measurements were those made in the Atlantic Ocean. Here there was a marked positive temperature change gradient between the north and the south; from -0.11°C for the North Atlantic, to 0.64°C for the north east Atlantic, to 0.44°C for the Middle Atlantic, 0.75°C for the South East Atlantic and 0.84°C for the South East Atlantic. There is a similar positive gradient between the Arabian Sea/ Bay of Bengal (0.53°C) and the sea route Capetown to Australia (0.91°C)

[Mike Davis]

Philip:
This brings up John Daley. If you have not read from that site you have missed much. He passed away but his work is still relevant today. It also shows what changes have been made since then if you can find graphs in his work. Some of the originals seem to have disappeared.:
http://www.john-daly.com/index.htm
Phil Jones made a derogatory comment about Daley when Daley passed away!

[Gropes]

Sure what else do you chaps want to reinterpret from Phil Jones's transcript?

Anything you like, your choice.

In that case, how about answering the point I raised with Climate Realist, since he avoids my questions.

[Gropes]

CHIA Groupie: Seeing how you want to change this thread that was started just for you to discuss Jones, I will oblige with the fact that Mars, Jupiter, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, and many of their moons also displayed warming during the same period the earth was warming. Jupiter actually recently lost its southern cloud belt due to warming! Well maybe it was because of reduced solar activity over the last few years for Jupiter.

You gotta laugh at this. According to denialists, we're not even sure the temperatures measurements on earth are reliable? But yet they somehow know exactly what's happening on a body on the far end of the solar system? Regular temperature record keeping has only been going on Earth 150 years, Pluto hasn't even gone through one orbital period considering it takes 248 years. Denialists must know something everybody else don't. Hey Mikey, perhaps you are going to tell us the weather stations on Pluto are more reliable than the ones on Earth, they don't suffer UHI? Or perhaps Climate Realist has been sticking one too many thermometers up Uranus.

[Mike Davis]

CHIA Groupie:
We know the surface temperature measurements of the earth are not reliable due to the uncertainties. Phil Jones even agreed about the uncertainties in Paleo reconstructions and historical surface temperatures. You are talking about trends. Cherry picking from point A to point B is how a trend is determined. You can find no statistically significant trend by finding a similar anomaly at some time in the historical records. You can find a warming trend by comparing today's temperature to a cooler period in the records. You can find a cooling trend by finding a warmer period in the records. It appears the easist way is to follow the Jones Hansen method and just manufacture the desired results by eliminating unwanted data and exaggerating desired data.
Let us know how the procedure turns out when you have your Cranialanalectomy!

[Mike Davis]

Quote from an e-mail by Jones in 2005:
If you think that it is a bit harsh to state that the alarmist scientists were aware that they were committing fraud, consider the next email from Phil Jones on 5th July, 2005:

This quote is from an Australian at the Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre, Melbourne (not Neville Nicholls). It began from the attached article. What an idiot. The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK, it has, but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.
This email shows that one of the major IPCC authors held views in private that he dare not state publicly. Post Climategate, Phil Jones has stated that the world has not warmed for the last fifteen years. Phil Jones was also aware that he had reason to hide data, as shown by this email dated 6th July, 2005:

I hope I don’t get a call from Congress! I’m hoping that no-one there realizes I have a United States Department of Energy grant, and have had this (with Tom Wigley) for the last 25 years.

Then we can throw in a little Trenberth to Jones:
For those who still might consider that the underlying science is solid, despite the behaviour of the scientists, the following email shows that the alarmist scientists were well aware of the divergence between their models and reality. On 11th October, 2009, Kevin Trenberth, of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research wrote:

Well I have my own article on “where the heck is global warming?” We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The data published in the August 2009 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

In the same vein, further from Kevin Trenberth on 14th October, 2009:

How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are nowhere close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter?

We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we cannot account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geo-engineering quite hopeless, as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!

The preceding came from this:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/06/why-sc ... -it-wrong/