WUWT readers may recall the bizarre saga of Douglas Keenan’s attempt to bring the research data of CRU’s Dr. Phil Jones and SUNY’s Dr. Wei Chyung Wang to sunlight, which I’ve covered here and here. At issue, is the metadata (or lack thereof) of Chinese weather stations used in a 1990 study by Jones and Wang which concluded that UHI didn’t exist in China. Keenan made complaints of academic misconduct to Wang’s university based on the fact that Wang couldn’t or wouldn’t produce the Chinese station metadata to back up his claims.
The metadata location history of where the weather stations were sited was crucial to Jones and Wang’s 1990 paper. It concluded the rising temperatures recorded in China were the result of “global warming” rather than the UHI effects of China’s rapidly growing cities and industrialization.
The IPCC used the Jones and Wang study in the 2007 TAR to justify the claim that “any urban-related trend” in global temperatures was small. Notably, Dr. Phil Jones was one of two “coordinating lead authors” for the relevant chapter.
From Warwick Hughes:
The IPCC drew that conclusion from the Jones et al 1990 Letter to Nature which examined temperature data from regions in Eastern Australia, Western USSR and Eastern China, to conclude that “In none of the three regions studied is there any indication of significant urban influence..” That has led to the IPCC claim that for decades, urban warming is less than 0.05 per century.
Really? UHI is easily observable. I’ve been telling readers about UHI since this blog started. One notable example that I demonstrated by actual measurement is Reno, NV:
Click for larger image
Even in my small town of Chico, CA the effect is measurable:
Oddly, Jones recently wrote what may now be viewed as a CYA paper, seeking to distance himself from Wang’s data. I reported in March 2009 that:
A paper in JGR that slipped by last fall without much notice (but know now thanks to Warwick Hughes) is one from Phil Jones, the director of the Hadley Climate Center in the UK. The pager is titled: Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China
In it, Jones identifies an urban warming signal in China of 0.1 degrees C per decade. Or, if you prefer, 1 degree C per century. Not negligible by any means.
Now, Steve McIntyre of Climate audit has put the entire tale of Jones, Wang, and Keenan together in one encompassing history. True to form, Steve finds and documents many minor but important details in this two decade long saga which many journo’s have missed.
In Brit parlance, it’s “gobsmacking”.
Steve outlines the Chinese Weather station issue in three parts. It is well worth the read because to really understand the depths of the pea and thimble management that went on over the years, you really need a complete history. Call it metadata.
Part 3 has this Climategate email from Wigley worth noting:
Phil,
Do you know where this stands? The key things from the Peiser items are …
“Wang had been claiming the existence of such exonerating documents for nearly a year, but he has not been able to produce them. Additionally, there was a report published in 1991 (with a second version in 1997) explicitly stating that no such documents exist. Moreover, the report was published as part of the Department of Energy Carbon Dioxide Research Program, and Wang was the Chief Scientist of that program.”
and
“Wang had a co-worker in Britain. In Britain, the Freedom of Information Act requires that data from publicly-funded research be made available. I was able to get the data by requiring Wang�s co-worker to release it, under British law. It was only then that I was able to confirm that Wang had committed fraud.”
You are the co-worker, so you must have done something like provide Keenan with the DOE report that shows that there are no station records for 49 of the 84 stations. I presume Keenan therefore thinks that it was not possible to select stations on the basis of …
“… station histories: selected stations have relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times”
[THIS IS ITEM “X”]
Of course, if the only stations used were ones from the 35 stations that *did* have station histories, then all could be OK. However, if some of the stations used were from the remaining 49, then the above selection method could not have been applied (but see below) – unless there are other “hard copy” station history data not in the DOE report (but in China) that were used. From what Wang has said, if what he says is true, the second possibility appears to be the case.
What is the answer here?
The next puzzle is why Wei-Chyung didn’t make the hard copy information available. Either it does not exist, or he thought it was too much trouble to access and copy. My guess is that it does not exist — if it did then why was it not in the DOE report? In support of this, it seems that there are other papers from 1991 and 1997 that show that the data do not exist. What are these papers? Do they really show this?
Now my views. (1) I have always thought W-C W was a rather sloppy scientist. I therefore would not be surprised if he screwed up here. But ITEM X is in both the W-C W and Jones et al. papers — so where does it come from first? Were you taking W-C W on trust?
(2) It also seems to me that the University at Albany has screwed up. To accept a complaint from Keenan and not refer directly to the complaint and the complainant in its report really is asking for trouble.
(3) At the very start it seems this could have been easily dispatched. ITEM X really should have been …
“Where possible, stations were chosen on the basis of station histories and/or local knowledge: selected stations have relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times”
Of course the real get out is the final “or”. A station could be selected if either it had relatively few “changes in instrumentation” OR “changes in location” OR “changes in observation times”. Not all three, simply any one of the three. One could argue about the science here — it would be better to have all three — but this is not what the statement says.
Why, why, why did you and W-C W not simply say this right at the start? Perhaps it’s not too late?
—–
I realise that Keenan is just a trouble maker and out to waste time, so I apologize for continuing to waste your time on this, Phil. However, I *am* concerned because all this happened under my watch as Director of CRU and, although this is unlikely, the buck eventually should stop with me.
Best wishes,
Tom
P.S. I am copying this to Ben. Seeing other peoples’ troubles might make him happier about his own parallel experiences.
Click for larger image
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
REPLICATION says AussieDan above.
Why are most people here talking as if the Jones paper was the only one on UHI? A quick look at science citation index reveals dozens of papers covering many parts of the world – basically the replication has already been done.
Berenyi Peter , suggests correlating UHI with population density – this does not sound right – the energy usage of a middle class area in California will be an order of magnitude greater than the much more densely populated slum in Calcutta. There is a paper on the NASA/GISS site (yes I know you don’t like them..) , link at the foot of this page http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010july/
which relates UHI to the brightness of city lights (brighter = more energy = more UHI). That seems a relatively sensible approach. (and they conclude UHI can be systematically corrected for…)
I’m stunned at the wanton linearisation of natural effects that clearly aren’t linear. UHI effect is NOT 0.1°C/decade if it’s been estimated at 1°C/century. There may be a decade when the UHI effect grows by 0.8°C, other decades when nothing much happens at all and other decades when the UHI effect actually declines; by e.g. “greening” of cities or urban decay..
It is a baseless assumption to assume a linear trend of UHI effect. There are blindingly obvious data to refute linear growth. Well, for those who are able to think outside of their taxpayer-funded ivory tower.
It is more than an over-simplification to use a linear trend. It’s daft.
If Jones’ fingerprints are on it, it’s fraudulent. That’s the null hypothesis, requiring 5-sigma evidence to falsify.
Hi Jimmi
The city light idea has been tested and found to be a poor proxy for UHI.
Roy Spencer’s careful matched pairs is probably the best study using satelite data.
But Jones is still trying to defend his 1990 paper which IPCC relys on.
The problem is that Jones has “lost” his data once again.
So replication would be a very simple method of closing this argument down, once and for all.
Re Lucy Skywalker says:
November 7, 2010 at 11:00 am
Thanks Lucy, you are quite correct.
Note that the number of Nature papers being retracted is on the upswing:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7320/full/468006b.html
Phil Jones looks as green as he does on camera because his conscience has been fermenting these toxins in his guts for two decades.
==========
This paper set back the recognition of the Urban Heat Island by 20 years. Even today, it is only just starting to be included in climate analysis.
20 years, is a long, long time for something that everyone knew was wrong on its face. Think about it, for 20 years, the IPCC and climate science looked the other way for this problem just so that they would not have to adjust the warming rate down to account for its affect. And these used this fake paper as cover in order to do so.
The NCDC is still writing papers saying it doesn’t exist in a material way (and they were as much involved in this from the beginning as Phil Jones was).
Bernd Felsche noted above at November 7, 2010 at 9:11 pm that UHI cannot be linear, or that its impact cannot be linear over time.
Well, UHI seems to be logarithmic with respect to population (which is not surprising since temperature and energy levels are logarithmic as is much of the climate in fact). The impact is steep for population increases starting at a low base (say 20,000 to 40,000) but becomes less as we move to higher bases (5 million to 6 million for example). It probably maxes out at +3.0C or thereabouts in the winter and at night.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/ISH-station-warming-vs-pop-density-with-lowest-bin-full.jpg
I am glad that I was never a climate “scientist”. To have become one it seems that I would have had to believe that site temperatures averaged out for twentyfour hours, and then averaged again for a single global figure, could ever tell me anything except that simple arithmetic is fairly easy. The average temperature for “Blogsville” yesterday was 17deg C. So what fact is there in that? If I am going there tomorrow what clothes shall I need? To answer that I shall need to know maximum and minimum, or at least whether Blogsville is in the high desert or on the coastal plain. I should have to believe that any average not based on a simultaneous recording of numbers at a wide and voluminous range of reliable stations could have some usable meaning. On that I would have to have passed.
I should also have had to believe that one can come to meaningful conclusions based on poor data. One cannot. One might work assiduously (as has been done above) to attempt to remove some errors, but what is left is an invitation to guess at an answer. Now it is possible to make good guesses at many things that we do not know but no matter how carefully and impartially a guess is made, the guess remains just that – a guess. If one of my younger grandchildren were to ask me whether I thought that climatology would be a good choice of career for him or her, I should advise them that in my view the “science” will not become spiritually rewarding until we have another fifty years’ of impeccable data. I might also point out that in any chosen field, financial reward depends all too much on not bucking the ruling propaganda.
I find it quite astounding that climate science has given UHI a wide berth, on the whole, or tended to dismiss it as fairly small.
Here in the UK, London is well known for being at least 2 or 3 degrees (c) higher than surrounding countryside. This is even readily observable via the multiple countrywide weather forecasts every day – because the London region is always shown with its own observed or predicted daily temperature!
I would be curious to know if any real adjustment (i.e. downwards) of the London met office data has been done, and more importantly what has that reduction been in actual degrees? and does it affect nearby semi rural data homogenisation? The whole issue of UHI is very important if, and it’s a big if – if the adjustments and the reasons for those adjustments are not completely justified and documented. Where is the data, Phil?
I would also add that in respect of Phil Jones – anyone who saw his testimony to the UK parliamentary committee (it’s on youtube for those who havent) could not possibly fail to note the guys lack of composure and clear discomfort. Now, why would that be? – yeah, maybe he is a shy kind of guy – but for someone who wants to save the world from itself, and considers AGW as a major problem, you would expect a little more confidence?
Regardless of the existence/magnitude of UHI, where would I find rough estimates of what % of global land surface area has changed use SOMEHOW (from undeveloped to rural or farmed or urban) since 1900?. I suspect it is a fairly significant percentage that has changed.
jimmi says:
November 7, 2010 at 8:50 pm
Berenyi Peter , suggests correlating UHI with population density this does not sound right the energy usage of a middle class area in California will be an order of magnitude greater than the much more densely populated slum in Calcutta. There is a paper on the NASA/GISS site (yes I know you dont like them..) , link at the foot of this page http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010july/
which relates UHI to the brightness of city lights (brighter = more energy = more UHI). That seems a relatively sensible approach. (and they conclude UHI can be systematically corrected for)
I would never suggest such a thing. I said UHI trend at each location should be correlated to log population density trend. It is not the same.
As for night lights, it is just another proxy. Most of UHI is caused by changes in local surface albedo, heat capacity, wind patterns and evapotranspiration while very little is related to direct heat release from local energy usage (heating and/or air conditioning).
Hansen 2010 may be an interesting approach, but it is flawed in its assumption about treating pitch black spots as a baseline all UHI effects are supposed to be measured against.
You must be aware of Steve Mosher’s analysis of GHCN metadata (station locations). He has found 230 stations located on water. If this kind of sloppiness is indicative of general quality of GHCN metadata, there should be far more displaced stations, most of them misplaced to just another land pixel (with a very different nighttime radiance).
As UHI is a fairly local effect, accuracy of metadata is all important. What is more, even if a pixel containing a specific station is dark indeed at night, it does not necessarily mean its vicinity is unaffected by local land use changes.
Even with accurate station locations, the correct approach, again, is to compare local temperature trends to local nightlight trends. However, reliable satellite nightlight measurements has a short history compared to population density data based on census figures.
Leave it to Steve McIntyre to straigthen out the messes left behind by the likes of Jones, Mann, and others who graze at the trough of public grant money to keep the myth of agw on life support.
Friends:
I am surprised that so few of the posts in this thread address the real and shocking issues.
Firstly, there is the important issue of scientific fraud.
Keenan observed that data provided by Wang and published in Jones et al. Nature (1990) was – and could only be – fabricated. Keenan repeatedly attempted to obtain an explanation of this from Wang, and when those attempts failed he also tried to obtain an explanation from Jones who claimed he did not have the apparently fabricated data.
Secondly, there is the lack of concern by a scientific journal that a paper it published may have been based on fabricated data. This complaint was presented to Nature by Keenan but was rejected by Nasture on the basis that Jones et al. Nature (1990) had been published 17 years earlier. However, there is no known ‘statute of limitation’ on scientific fraud.
Thirdly, there is the important issue of attempted usurption of the publication process by means of intimidation.
Having failed to obtain an explanation for the apparent fabrication of data, Keenan wrote two versions of a paper that explained the apparent fabrication and the evidence which clearly indicated the fabrication. He submitted one version as a complaint to Wang’s university and submitted the other to the journal Energy & Environment (E&E) with a view to its publication.
The Editor of E&E, Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, asked Wang and Jones for comment on the submitted paper prior to deciding if she would send the paper for peer review. The self-titled Team responded by writing to the Editor’s university in an attempt to get that university to disown her. Dr Boehmer-Christiansen responded to that attempt by again demonstrating the courage for which she is rightly famous. She defended herself to her employing university, and she published Keenan’s paper which clearly and explicitly accuses Wang of fraud, then waited to see if the Team would sue (they did not).
Fourthly, there is the important issue of cover-up.
Keenan’s complaint to Wang’s university resulted in his university conducting an investigation. But that investigation was conducted in a manner that failed to comply with the university’s own rules, failed to adequately involve the complainant, then concluded that Wang was innocent. Later the Muir-Russell Inquiry failed to address the matter.
Richard
Here’s a good rundown of the Wang misconduct:
http://freebornjohn.blogspot.com/2009/03/kafka-at-albany.html
And another here:
http://www.countingcats.com/?p=5023
[Note that another scientist convicted of fraud similar to Wang’s has been sentenced to prison.]
Doug Kennan’s home page, with his peer reviewed paper on the Wang fraud:
http://www.informath.org
And for those interested, do a search for “wang” here. There are some interesting email interactions between Wang and others [at one point Wang wanted to sue Keenan. Obviously, others possessing common sense prevailed upon him to forget that disastrous tactic].