I had intended to simply publish the link BUT there is so much interesting stuff even at the beginning that I cannot resist copying some of it.
His additional posts I will just tack on the end.
Perhaps it is obvious that I am enjoying this! (email text in bold) My comments in blue.
Foia – README part 2
Urban Heat Island, View From The Team
It is interesting that they find a UHI effect, sometimes, but seem uninterested in what that might mean to the validity of their conclusions… Jones looks like he really believes that UHI just doesn’t matter, despite the crummy handling of it in things like GIStemp.
/// The Urban Heat Effect ///
By coincidence I also got recently a paper from Rob which says “London’s UHI has indeed become more intense since the 1960s esp during spring and summer”.
I think the urban-related warming should be smaller than this, but I can’t think of a good way to argue this. I am hopeful of finding something in the data that makes by their Figure 3.
[…] we found the [urban warming] effect is pretty big in the areas we analyzed. This is a little different from the result you obtained in 1990. […] We have published a few of papers on this topic in Chinese. Unfortunately, when we sent our comments to the IPCC AR4, they were mostly rejected.
So we’ve got UHI reported in papers, some of which were rejected, and we know The Team manipulated things to get papers rejected. Was this one of them? Jones is trying to refute the findings, but is at a loss somewhat. From other analysis, we know that UHI is highest as things first change from rural to small cities, but also know that adding cars, tarmac, and miles of city on all sides heats things too. If more slowly a ramp up than when first turning cow fields to houses and roads.
4789 Wigley: there are some nitpicky jerks who have criticized the Jones et al. data sets – we don’t want one of those [EPRI/California Energy Commission meeting].
The jerk you mention was called Good(e)rich who found urban warming at all Californian sites.
Oh Dear! Find something they say is not there, and you become a ‘nitpicky jerk’… Well… Jones then recognizes that UHI was found in California. At all sites.
I think China is one of the few places that are affected [urban heat]. The paper shows that London and Vienna (and also New York) are not affected in the 20th century.
[…] every effort has been made to use data that are either rural and/or where the urbanization effect has been removed as well as possible by statistical means. There are 3 groups that have done this independently (CRU, NOAA and GISS), and they end up with essentially the same results. […] Furthermore, the oceans have warmed at a rate consistent with the land. There is no urban effect there.
Despite the evidence elsewhere, Jones stands his ground. Never mind that the three ‘independent’ systems share code and do a lousy job of UHI removal. How he gets ocean warming adjusted for the lag time in overturning is beyond me. That it matches the land slope makes me think it’s wrong. Land, with fast response, changes at the same rate as the oceans with a several hundred year turnover cycle? Doesn’t add up unless there is an effort to enforce conformity, conscious or not.
(Given that ocean temperatures vary from just above zero to much higher temperatures, and they traditionally don’t vary much at the equator, selection of stations could easily enable a global warming trend that matches the land, IMO).
Carpet bag in hand, they press on… /// Temperature Reconstructions ///
any method that incorporates all forms of uncertainty and error will undoubtedly result in reconstructions with wider error bars than we currently have. These many be more honest, but may not be too helpful for model comparison attribution studies. We need to be careful with the wording I think.
what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.
How to erase ‘problems’ with “careful wording”? I’m once again struck by the desire to Reach The Goal, even if it means ironing over things that are pointing to error. Error bars so wide things become “more honest” but “not be too helpful”? No problem, word paper it over…
Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems to me that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no
I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures. […] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.
I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”.
Well, some honesty creeps in.
These three find issues with statistical lack of significance, with random data generating a hockey stick like “Macintyre has been going on about” and one even says he wants to distance himself from the Mann/Jones paper. Wonder how their careers have progressed from this point? Would be interesting to see if they learned the hymnal or got sidetracked. In any case, we know that some ‘inside folks’ recognize The Team’s iconic work is a bit broken.
Well, any warmist who reads this and doesn’t “get it” would have trouble proving he has an IQ above 100, IMHO. There is so much more of interest, I have a problem in not copying it all. I might later just to satisfy my soul.
One item that struck me in regards to UHI was the reference to China where it would be expected (UHI, that is). Yet they are finding that of all countries, China’s near surface temperatures are least indicative of global warming. This may actually be because of negative “feedback” effects of atmospheric pollution, but these “scientists” really seem to be without much idea what makes the climate system really work. They are hell-bent on following the cause, regardless of the science!
In the meantime –
Chiefio then follows up with: (Sorry, wrong post first time)
Foia – README selections Foia 5335 – FOI answer? Sue them! (I have yet to read this myself. but I have faith in his work)
- Climategate Scientists DID Collude with Government Officials to Hide Research That Didn’t Fit Their Apocalyptic Global Warming (tipggita32.wordpress.com)
- Climategate 2.0: “Scientists” at the heart of the global warming movement exposed as doubting their claims (alethonews.wordpress.com)
- AGW – Following the Climategate II emails: (tgrule.wordpress.com)
- AGW – One man’s science is another man’s pseudo-science! Part 2. (tgrule.wordpress.com)