Plus answers to yesterday’s Fun puzzle: Name these official stations.
Given that California Governor Jerry Brown has recently setup a website at the governor’s office basically telling skeptics to “shut up” I thought this would be a good time to publish this.
This is a paper that was presented at a climate conference by Jim Goodridge, former State Climatologist of California, titled Population and Temperature Trends in California at the Pacific Climate Workshop, in Pacific Grove, CA March 22-26, 1987.
In this paper, Jim presented what I believe to be the very first photos bringing attention to the issue of station siting. Yesterday, I published both of those photos on WUWT here: Fun puzzle: Name these official stations.
The answer to the first photo was correctly made by commenter “Hoser”:
Hoser says:
August 15, 2012 at 10:32 pm
It’s been a long time, but the top one might be Mt. Hamilton, Lick Observatory. That might be the astronomer’s dormatory behind the car. Yikes, 25 years since I’ve been there.
Yes, the official temperature at the Lick Observatory is measured on a concrete slab rooftop where cars can park and there’s a chimney nearby:
Surprisingly, that station is still in operation today. It has been converted to MMTS electronic thermometer, but from what I can tell, still appears to be at the same location as before. Note the walkway bridge and chimney shadow:
Interactive source map: http://binged.it/PscDx2
NOTE: Perhaps one of our WUWT readers in the Bay Area can make a trip up to the Lick Observatory this weekend to advise with a photograph if the station still exists on the same spot or not. You’d think that on such a hallowed grounds of science, they’d know enough to put the thermometer away from the chimney and concrete. Let’s see if they’ve figured it out in 25 years since then.
As for the other station near the incinerator, that is a Taylor max-min thermometer used by the Quincy, CA Highway Department, now since closed. Nobody got that one, but there were some good guesses. 
Siting issues aside, Jim made some important discoveries in this paper where he looked at rural -vs- urban temperature trends. He only has a paper copy left, as the Mac disks this was done on have long ago been lost. I took the paper copy to Staples and had it scanned into a PDF file, which is presented in full below.
This page 9 of graphs below, figures 4 and 5 tell the story for California Surface Temperature data:
Mind you, this is data that Jim used prior to the big range of adjustments that have been applied by NCDC. Jim provides all that data in the paper. It might be interesting to compare the data then and now to see what has been done to it. Another important distinction of note is that this paper was presented over a year before NASA’s Dr. James Hansen went before the Senate in June 1988, and touted his science and model predictions, deeming it so solid that they had to turn off the air conditioning in the hearing room for “theatrical effect”.
Figure 6 and 7 on page 10 are also instructive:
But this set of graphs from page 12 is really interesting:
The trend for rural stations is interesting, because Jim found a correlation for it:
Here are figures 15 to 18:
And here is Figure 19. Indeed the similarity is remarkable.
The other conclusion to Jim’s paper is that there is a correlation between population trend and temperature trend for inland urban stations, as seen in this graph:
Jim eventually went on to publish a letter in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society in 1996 on this issue. This one graph from that letter was a “light bulb moment” for me:
The reply from Kwang-Y Kim, published next to Goodridge’s letter is an interesting admission:
Kim had co-authored a CO2 regional modeling paper with Gerald North in 1995, suggesting that temperatures were on the rise to CO2, but Goodridge in his letter had suggested their base temperature data had been polluted:
I have to wonder, if somebody had put Goodridge’s 1987 paper in front of Jim Hansen in 1987 or early 1988, would it have made any difference in his claims made in June 1988 before the Senate?
Probably not, because as we’ve seen, there seems to be an unwavering belief system that climatic scale temperature is controlled only by Carbon Dioxide concentration, and anyone who presents a contrary view is immediately denigrated and labeled. For example, Hansen’s CRU compatriot Dr. Phil Jones already had formed a strong opinion of Goodridge’s work, which we see thanks to Climategate 2 (bold mine):
file 4789.txt
date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 09:25:14 +0100
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxx>
subject: Re: CA climate
to: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxx>,Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxx>
Tom,
Bryan Weare is at US Davis. He would know about some of the things you
mention. The jerk you mention was called Good(e)rich who found urban
warming at all Californian sites.
I’m away until today until May 5 in Nice and Geneva. I hope you can do
the temperature plots yourself and that Mike can do the precip ones.
Mike has the data as 5 degree grid boxes, so the it would be good if
you could define these for him. I think he’s back tomorrow.
It would be possible to use the 0.5 degree grid boxes but we’d have to
get Mark New to do that for us.
Cheers
Phil
At 12:13 PM 4/24/00 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote:
>Phil and Mike,
>
>I have to attend a meeting organized by EPRI and the California Energy
>Commission on June 12, 13. The focus is future climate scenarios and the
>implied impacts. It will include discussions of GCM results and
>statistical and LAM downscaling. They want someone to address observed
>climate (homogeneity problems; E-W and N-S contrasts; ENSO effects;
>changes in circulation — such as increased offshore cyclogenesis, changes
>in storm tracks; etc.), but they don’t have anyone invited yet. Chuck
>Hakkarinen (EPRI) says there is someone at UC-Davis who is an “expert” on
>CA climate. Who is this? Do you know any other Californians who are in
>the observed climate game and who you respect? (From memory, there are
>some nitpicky jerks who have criticized the Jones et al. data sets — we
>don’t want one of those. Wasn’t one of these guys called Goodrich?)
>
>For myself, I would like to have some monthly time series for the CA area
>average. I can possibly do this for temperature, but certainly not for
>precipitation. Is there any way you two could send me time series within
>the next day or so (before I leave for Australia)? For the regions, I’d
>like results for the following separate areas (as near as you can do it):
>(1) 32-36degN, 115-121degW
>(2) 36-42degN, 118-124degW
>(3) 32-42degN, 114-124degW
>(4) 36-42degN, 106-114degW
>The last one represents the headwaters of the Colorado River.
>
>Finally, if you had some PDSI time series for the region, I’d very much
>like these too.
>
>Many thanks,
>
>
>Tom
>
>
>
>**********************************************************
>Tom M.L. Wigley
>Senior Scientist
>ACACIA Program Director
>National Center for Atmospheric Research
>P.O. Box 3000
>Boulder, CO 80307-3000
>USA
>Phone: 303-xxxx
>Fax: 303-497-xxxx
>E-mail: wigley@xxxx
>Web: http://www.acacia.ucar.edu
>**********************************************************
>
>
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-
Tom Wigley and Phil Jones are some piece of work, aren’t they?
The entire 1987 paper by Jim Goodridge is available here as a PDF: Goodridge_1987_paper (16mb)
We owe Jim Goodridge some thanks, not only for the work he has done, but also for the abuse he’s suffered alongside us all from “The team”.
D/L’d the paper; reads very clearly as a careful and competent effort by a true professional (and local expert with first-hand knowledge).
The Jerk’s Revenge! More broken glass for the Team to chew on …
JJ, putting aside where we already agree:
I wrote, “Your second, “not so much” we almost agree, except that I’m willing to concede JG’s professional judgment.”
To which you answered: “Most people around here say “In God we Trust, all others show data.” Being Agnostic, I’m a notch tougher than that. 🙂”
Regarding professional judgment, the data are Jim Goodridge’s education and years of employment as a climatologist. Here is a record of his Special Recognition Award at the 2005 California Extreme Precipitation Symposium. JG’s credentials to make a professional judgment are beyond dispute. Nevertheless you dispute them, as is your right.
The central question is whether the sites themselves are in fact urban/rural or not. You trust that Pielke Sr. et al., 2002, wrote the truth about their stations; so do I. But you will not grant the same trust that Jim Goodridge wrote the truth when he noted rural/urban correspondence with his direct inspection of “most of the sites.” Pielke Sr.’s descriptions are not data, e.g., untampered photographs. Nevertheless, you credit his statements. Therefore, it seems that your trust is inconsistently given.
Regarding the stations listed in Tables 1 and 2, you wrote, “None of which speak to urban/rural or the associated siting quality issues.”
Rural/urban is designated; you merely deny JG to have made a professionally credible judgment. As you note JG did not describe specific site quality. Pielke Sr., et al., 2002, also did not describe specific site qualities, but did describe areal features, which you see fit to not deny.
Regarding the maps and Table 3, you wrote, “They may allow correlation of site with population, but that wasn’t done.”
Except Table 3 does records County population. Pielke Sr., et al., 2002, record the population of the nearby urban area. The same effort would be required if one wished to independently verify the qualities of the sites listed in either paper.
This is true of any paper in science. One trusts that the report is accurate. Lacking trust, or if the reported data are critical, one makes the effort to repeat the observation or experiment oneself. You’re supposing that JG’s paper is uniquely bereft by requiring such verification. However, it’s not. It’s typical. Specific verification of any paper requires that sort of effort.
You wrote, “What other sites also don’t fit? We don’t know.”
We don’t possess that level of assurance about any report that we have not personally verified. What should we do about that? Should each of us re-verify science starting with Galileo’s experiments? If you trust that Pielke Sr. et al., 2002, were telling the truth about their sites, there’s no reasonable way to reject JG’s statement of direct urban/rural knowledge. Unless you can prove him incompetent.
“exonneration by association” That was a demonstration of adherence to professional practice. Science is method.
You wrote, “And what you (for some inexplicable reason) didn’t say is more damning still. Pielke’s Table II includes the current population for each site. Oh, and Pielke’s Table I gives the population history for each site, for the entire 20th century. Shame on you Pat.”
Pielke, Sr., et al., give the populations of the associated urban areas. JG gives the populations of the associated counties; less resolution for sure. On the other hand, JG gives the full temperature histories of each site. Pielke Sr, et al. do not. You didn’t mention that. Should you shame yourself?
JG Figures 13 and 14 show that the California temperature trend positively correlates with population at the urban-designated sites but is independent of the increasing rural population.
Although he didn’t mention it, JG’s Figures 12 and 13 show that the total trend in temperature and the urban trend alone, have the nearly same slope of 0.03 F/decade. The rural trend is about zero F/decade. That is, JG’s data show the entire trend in California temperature is correlated with the growth in population of his pre-designated urban sites.
Regarding SSTs you wrote, “Pick a group of *anything* based on the flatness of its trend, and you would expect it to correlate with SSTs.”
The correlation of SST with local unbiased temperatures is a deduction from physical theory. Your objection ignores the physically valid scientific context of the correlation.
You wrote, “You are assuming “unbiased”, but you aren’t grouping based on documented bias. You are grouping on trend… etc.”
JG validated his grouping by direct knowledge of the site quality. You merely deny his standing to do that. Having denied that, your subsequent claim of lack of validity in the data is merely tendentious. I.e., dependent on your presumption of JG’s lack of professional acuity.
You wrote, “You’re just regurgitating your assumptions.” Thanks for the amusing irony.
You wrote, regarding the SST rural/urban distinction, “No. That line of reasoning is a form of confirmation bias.” Not correct. The SST data are independent.
You wrote, again regarding the SST correlation, “<em.Given that the stations in question were chosen because they didn’t demonstrate net heating, this is not surprising. It is tautological.”
This is your central issue, and faustusnotes’. It rests entirely on your denial of JG’s professional standing to have observed, judged, and known the urban/rural distinction for “most” of his sites, where “most” means a large enough fraction such that JG himself was professionally confident in the results.
The tautology, therefore, is a consequence of your disbelief, and not inherent in what JG did.
The credibility of your claim of tautology, therefore, resides entirely on whether one wishes to credit your rejection of JG’s professional acuity, or not.
That makes your claim, and that of faustusnotes, indistinguishable from a polemic. It requires selective credit of your standing to deny JG’s standing.
You have no such standing here. Nor does faustusnotes. Nor do I, for that matter. However, unlike you and faustusnotes, I’m prepared to honor the evidence of JG’s professional career.
And that’s the baseline issue. There’s really not much more to be said.
You wrote, “Essentially, you are saying that the “findings” of JG’s paper are not in JG’s paper, but that his findings are to be found in other people’s papers. Silly.”
You appear unaware of the power and meaning of a corroborating result.
The rest of your comments are along the same lines. You deny JG’s professional standing to have made the urban/rural distinction. You disallow the deductive physical context that links the meaning of SSTs and unbiased rural land air temperatures. You don’t credit independent published corroboration.
That’s your position as you’ve apparently stated it. It’s without merit. You’re welcome to the last word. I sincerely doubt it will substantify your case.
Pat,
I had expected that we were breaking away from the circular reasoning of the earlier discussion. Instead, you have doubled down and introduced a brand new fallacy, attempting to prop up the tautology with an appeal to authority.
Very disappointing. Particularly so, given that such is being posted here on WUWT, which earned its place in the blogosphere when Anthony rejected the official pronouncements by “people of acuity, prestige and standing” that the siting of temperature stations was just so. Anthony then quantified the extent to which they just weren’t. Now you’d reverse the roles?
I’m going to disentangle the fallacies, and address each in turn, starting with the new one.
I am not disputing JG’s credentials, or denying his professional standing, or rejecting his professional acuity, or any of the other ways that you restate the same false ad verecundium argument. Professional standing does not substitute for data and analysis. No doubt that JG is eminently qualified to perform an objective and quantified siting assessment, if he chose to do so. He didn’t. He would likely be quite capable of quantifying the difference in siting assessment between two populations of stations so classified, if he chose to do so. He didn’t. Had he done those things, then he would have had scientific results to report and he could have rearranged the logic of his paper in the manner you suggest to avoid the tautology. He didn’t, didn’t, and didn’t.
The central question is whether the sites themselves are in fact urban/rural or not.
No, that isnt even a question. We know that the sites are not in fact urban/rural. JG tells us that. A substantive issue is that we do not have a quantification of urban/rural for each of the sites. JG tells us that, too. Nor do we have a quantification for any of the other siting issues that JG appeals to in his ad hoc justification of the instances he mentions where the urban/rural classification was incorrect.
The central issue is that, lacking those quantification data there are no results from which to test what you argue was JG’s “implied hypothesis”, and lacking that ability to test that hypothesis JG chose instead to assume that hypothesis, creating a tautology.
You trust that Pielke Sr. et al., 2002, wrote the truth about their stations; so do I. But you will not grant the same trust that Jim Goodridge wrote the truth when he noted rural/urban correspondence with his direct inspection of “most of the sites.”
Nonsense. It trust that if JG said that he visited most of the sites at some point in his long and distinguished career, then he in fact visited most of those sites. Most is not sufficient. Subjective recollection is not sufficient. Unquantified assessement based on subjective recollection of most is not even in the same room as sufficient. The problem is not that I don’t trust what JG says he did. The problem is that I do.
If we trust that JG did what he said he did, then he created a tautology. You want to rescue JG from that faux pas, by pretending he did something other than what he says he did, your “implied hypothesis”. But if we trust that JG did what he said he did (and I do), he has no results from which to derive conclusions regarding the validity of that hypothesis.
Prove this to yourself. Attempt to answer these very basic questions regarding the results that would be necessary to evaluate a test of the ‘implied hypothesis’ that you are pretending was the thesis of JG’s paper:
* Of the 74 sites that were used in this paper, how many were visited by JG?
* When it is stated that some of the 74 sites were ‘fairly realistic’ WRT the urban/rural classification that was not based on urbanity or rurality, what does ‘fairly realistic’ mean? i.e. what is the urbanity standard that JG is applying to arrive at ‘fairly realistic’?
* Of the 35 stations classed as “urban” by the trend selection method, how many were visited by JG?
* Of the 35 stations classed as “urban” by the trend selection method that were also visited, how many were actually “urban” by his urbanity standard?
* Of the 39 stations classed as “rural” by the trend selection method, how many were visited by JG?
* Of the 39 stations classed as “rural” by the trend selection method that were also visited, how many were actually “rural” by his urbanity standard?
* Of the stations that were incorrectly classified as urban or rural by the temp trend based method, how many if any does JG think should remain in the incorrect classification? For what reasons?
* Of the stations that were correctly classified as urban or rural by the temp trend based method, how many would be switched if the reasons for switching classification were applied?
No test of the “implied hypothesis” could proceed absent the answers to those very basic questions, which would constitute minimal results for such an examination. From those answers, one could begin to quantify the hypothesized differences in rurality between the two populations. From those quantities, one could apply a hypothesis test, perhaps a comparison against a chi-square distribution, for example.
But you cannot answer those questions, because those data are not included in the paper. And they weren’t included, because JG didn’t have those data. He had the (standing, acuity, credentials, prestige, glowing halo, lack of original sin, whatever) to have properly collected those data and quantified those results. But he did not.
And lacking those data, he had no results for the “implied hypothesis”, so he did not present it. Instead, he created a tautology.