And now, Douglas J. Keenan raises serious questions about the Chinese surface station data (PDF);
This report concerns two research papers co-authored by Wei-Chyung Wang, a professor at the University at Albany, State University of New York. The two papers are as follows.
Jones P.D., Groisman P.Y., Coughlan M., Plummer N., Wang W.-C., Karl T.R. (1990), “Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land”, Nature, 347: 169–172.
Wang W.-C., Zeng Z., Karl T.R. (1990), “Urban heat islands in China”, Geophysical Research Letters, 17: 2377–2380.Each paper compares temperature data from some meteorological stations in China, over the years 1954–1983. (The first paper also considers data from stations in the USSR and Australia; Wang was only involved in Chinese data, and so the other stations are irrelevant here.) The first paper is quite important: it is cited for resolving a major issue in the most recent assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC, 2007].
[,,,]
Regarding station movements over time, the papers of Jones et al. and Wang et al. make the following statements.The stations were selected on the basis of station history: we chose those with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times. [Jones et al.]
They were chosen based on station histories: selected stations have relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times…. [Wang et al.]Those statements are essential for the papers.
[…]
The essential point here is that the quoted statements from Jones et al. and Wang et al. cannot be true and could not be in error by accident. The statements are fabricated.
Keenan states that as a result of his report, Wang’s university is holding a misconduct investigation.*.
Via Anthony Watts (if you’re looking for the short form).
Related: “Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt.”.
When I see a paper entitled “Effects of locating temperature sensors next to air conditioners on the long term veracity of the US climatological data base.” in New Scientist and/or Scientific American I’ll know we have started to see the light at the end of the tunnel on this subject.
Ohoh. How long before Keenan gets his site whacked by the eco-nuts. i hope they find them if they do,and sue their silly,leftoid a*&es off!
Chinese “data?” is manufactured for whoever will pay for it. They have been concocting “facts” for generations are probably the best at this game of politicized “science”.
“And now, Douglas J. Keenan raises serious questions about the Chinese surface station data”
…i’m really, really resisting a “made in China” joke right now.
Depending on the favour of the Chinese political winds, that is the temperature today.
*sigh*
The PDF isn’t long. It also has relevant comments about the state of Chinese data collection of all types during that time period.
First it was a hoax, then it’s a communist conspiracy and for a brief stint it was no longer a hoax but the Sun’s fault. Now it’s all a big misunderstanding over a few oddly placed thermometers. I enjoyed the communist conspiracy rants better.
The thing is that under the rule of communists, the ‘facts’ must absolutely conform to the opinion of the communist in charge. There is no such thing as reason. It is truly courageous for those, who under the dictat refuse to conform.
As for the person commenting at August 14, 2007 10:32 AM, what ever, the data is made to conform to preconceived agenda.
Jose – no matter how much believeable doubt gets cast on GW lefties like you continue to worship at the altar of Al and David. No matter how many reputable environmental scientists cast serious doubt on the GW scare, you continue believe the drivel spewed by a couple of guys who have no credentials in the field. I suggest that it is you who is the conspiracy theorist.
Via Drudge, today, there is a story from Nov 2, 1922, stating seals are disappearing, the artic is warming and icebergs are melting. Did Gore plagerize this article in his movie.
“First it was a hoax, then it’s a communist conspiracy and for a brief stint it was no longer a hoax but the Sun’s fault. Now it’s all a big misunderstanding over a few oddly placed thermometers. I enjoyed the communist conspiracy rants better.”
Keep toking your sensi and living in nerd-boy trekkie realities….these things are obviously too confusing for you to process.
So basically the consensus here is that the ‘warming’ was caused by improperly installed measuring equipment, or outright fabrication. So maybe there is no warming at all, or if there is, it is negligible. Fair enough.
Then I’d like to know how all that ice is melting. Just take a look to that site:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/archive.html
There are pictures there – not numbers anyone can tweak any way they want to suit their agendas. And on that count both sides of the AGW debate are guilty. Al Gore is a fraud, Tim Ball and Fred Singer are frauds too (Singer among others is on record to pretend glaciers are not receding, which flies in the face of evidence all around us).
If AGW is not real, that’s good news indeed. But then we need to know why the ice cap & glacier melting is occurring. This is no laughing matter, millions of people depend on glaciers for their water needs and food production.
And even with AGW ‘disproved’, we still need to look at ways to reduce our use of fossil fuel energy, and develop alternatives. Fossil fuels won’t last forever.
Jose:
You talk as if the various discussions around the shortcomings of the AGW theory are mutually-exclusive (and of course, you simplify and then denigrate in the best “straw-man style” of debate). T’ain’t necessarily so — agendas (regardless of their ideological provenance) oftentimes drive the acceptance of certain subsets of data, as well as their interpretation, to fit pre-conceived narratives. The proponents of AGW are no better (and no worse) in this regard than anybody else, and like everyone else, need to stop assuming that they’ve arrived at “the truth.” It makes them immune to consideration of further info, even when they desperately need not to be immune. The issues are too big and too complex to approach with skeptical/critical faculties of reasoning essentially shut down.
Faith is for church, not for global climatological policy.
If AGW is not real, that’s good news indeed. But then we need to know why the ice cap & glacier melting is occurring. This is no laughing matter, millions of people depend on glaciers for their water needs and food production.
Well then, it’s a good thing that they’re melting. It’s difficult to irrigate crops with ice.
From gnotalex:
“Well then, it’s a good thing that they’re melting. It’s difficult to irrigate crops with ice.”
I assume your comment is in jest, of course they’re melting, the problem is that they’re melting faster than snow replenishes them in winter. So eventually those communities will be left with no water, except what’s provided by rainfall.
It has been suggested to build dams to collect the water, but as most mountain areas are prone to earthquakes, this can be a challenge.
“If AGW is not real, that’s good news indeed. But then we need to know why the ice cap & glacier melting is occurring. This is no laughing matter, millions of people depend on glaciers for their water needs and food production.”
:D…are you a Jose-type “green trekkie”?..Like you think this water is leaving the planet never to return? Water is the least of our worries in any long term sustainability plan.
Have glaciers never melted before?
Well they’re doin’ it again.
Changing this is an argument you Trekkie greeners have with the SUN not someone’s hamberger farts.
I know it’s hard for science fiction nerds to wrap their pot addled heads around the fact there are mechanisms of nature that human technology is beyond affecting, but hey, here nature goes on another climate cycle and there’s damn little you can do about it except adapt…like 100s of generations of humans have done in eras past….sorry, no magic technology or science or political crusade will allow you to escape this natural fate….roll with it.
We didn’t create the climate and its engines, we don’t effect them in any meaningful way and we certainly can’t stop them, back them up or tax or regulate them away.
Garth Wood: I agree that science has skepticism at its heart. This is a good, natural and important part of scientific discovery.
However the question that I am now considering is how to deal with the oft repeated things that are not part of skepticism, but simple done to confuse the issue.
For example, CO2 and IR absorption. How many times do you hear the statement that it does not matter how much CO2 we add since it is already “saturated” in regards to IR absorption. This reflects the thinking of about 70 years ago but is now known to not be correct.
Yet it keeps showing up time and again. To me this is not skepticism but something else.
Regards,
John
And imagine a paper that reads SCIENTISTS DISCOVER THAT IT GETS HOT IN SUMMER AND COLD IN WINTER AND SPRING AND FALL IT VARIES yeah and the TITANIC was UNSINKIBLE
“:D…are you a Jose-type “green trekkie”?..Like you think this water is leaving the planet never to return? Water is the least of our worries in any long term sustainability plan.”
If your field is dry as kiln it is small comfort to know there is an ocean full of water 2,000 miles away.
And no I’m not a ‘green trekkie’, just a guy skeptical of BOTH sides of the debate.
Glaciers have melted before, of course, and they’re melting now, while temperatures are not changing. Does that make sense to you? Or maybe I’m addled?
Another one for Jose:
Do you know how many Wall Streeters were scoffing at “doom and gloomers” as of 1931? I bring up this point for triangulation purposes, with this commonality: once you categorize skeptics as nothing more than either envious malcontents or wicked profiteers, then you go blind when your side proves to be vulnerable.
The financial writer “Adam Smith” once sat down and read the headline editorials of the American financial weekly Barron’s from 1929 to 1933. He said that experience was sobering, and at times pathetic.
@Everyone Else, regarding the greenie hostility to the oil companies: could this hostility have something to do with the fact that oil company CEOs are (or as least were, as of 1980) engineers?
“Glaciers have melted before, of course, and they’re melting now, while temperatures are not changing. Does that make sense to you? Or maybe I’m addled”
GreenNeck,
Changing temperature is not what’s required to melt glaciers.
If the temperature is at a point that glaciers melt, it doesn’t matter if the temperature goes up or not, the glaciers continue to melt.
There are also other factors that effect melting glaciers, ie land use change, “dirty snow” (recent article published on this), etc.
Don’t get caught in the rhetoric that says “glaciers are melting because the temperature is going up due to AGW”.
I keep reminding myself of the mile thick glacier that used to exist where I live in Southern Ontario and melted long before the industrial revolution.
I believe that warming is real but AGW is questionable, at best. Too much politics not enough objective scientific debate. Then there is evidence of flawed sample data (temp stations) and inaccurate computer modelling (Mann Hockey stick/NASA Y2K bug). So if the science is questionable then the political solutions based on that science are equally questionable (ETS and carbon taxes).
If the goal is reduce fossil fuel consumption then invest in research into alternatives by redirecting a part of the AGW funding. If there is concerns about the effects of global warming then fund ways to help affected people. That way if problems actually occur the world is prepared to deal with it using technology, adaptation and relocation. There is already money dedicated to foreign aid programs. To flush away vast amounts of taxpayer and business money into trading schemes, transfers to third world dictators and enriching government coffers is useless. Money should go to problems like fixing verifiable pollution, new technology and disease control.
“If AGW is not real, that’s good news indeed. But then we need to know why the ice cap & glacier melting is occurring.”
the A is for Anthropogenic . . i.e. human caused.
should be
NGW – Natural Global Warming
and
NGC – Natural Global Cooling
Just like it has always been.
It is a good thing glaciers do melt sometimes. Only 15000 years ago most of Canada was under a kilometer or two of ice — but it melted and is still melting.
Today’s forcast, the year 13000BC
Heavy ice-cover all day and all night.
No sun at all, complete darkness. All day too. Temperatures steady near -5C. No wind(ever).
Cloud(ice) thickness — 1 to 2 kilometers.
Barometric pressure; 2275 psi @ ground level.
Same forcast for all Canadian Cities.
Weather Warning: Citizens are advised to do all they can to help melt the ice.
There will be some natural melting in another 5000 years.
By 1975 the weather will have moderated. Farmers will be able to grow food again and we will be able to go to the beach.
20000 years after that — a mile of ice again 🙁
WL “We didn’t create the climate and its engines, we don’t effect them in any meaningful way and we certainly can’t stop them, back them up or tax or regulate them away.”
Stage One: The world isn’t warming.
Stage Two: The world is warming but for a different reason (any reason really we’re not picky).
Stage Three: It’s all the Liberal’s fault.
Ron, most if not all leftist GW zealots choose to ignore facts of the last ice age and the mile and a half of ice that covered much of present day Canada. Seems to me considerable global warming was required to melt a chunk of ice that immense. Another fact, James Bay lowlands are still being uplifted from the weight of that sheet of ice. But of course facts are’nt relevant to the closed minds of the GW hysterical sheeple who choose to believe unproven fantasy theories aided and abetted by MSM.
Stage One: This is your government. Please drive Honda Priii and use crappy lightbulbs.
Stage Two: Hmmm, greenhouse gases still going up. Your government is asking you very nicely to self-sterilize, thank you.
Stage Three, population 7.5 billion: The Killing Fields.
The little ice age just ended. The terminal moraine of the Athabasca glacier was in 1844. Not too many Chevy SUV’s in 1844.
It is also notable that in the icefields of Jasper, the Athabasca is still receeding but the Hubbard is expanding.
Precipitation has as much to do with glaciers as temperature on an annual basis. Not that you’d know that from the climate liars. When agenda pollutes science, it destroys it.
JOSE,
I dare you to read your own posts and gather one fact that you have provided on any issue. All you provide is sneer without substance which makes you less than useful.
As usual, your comprehension of other people’s stances is entirely fictional.
So, like Alby, why don’t you got talk to whoever tells you what your opinion is and get back to us.
Jose “THERE IS NO ELEPHANT” Leftie dude:
Stage One, we measure to see if the world is warming.
Stage Two, we discover the measurements are bogus.
Stage Three, we kick over a few rocks to see who misappropriated public funds and boogerized a whole, very expensive, temperature monitoring system.
Hopeful for Stage Four, jail time for guilty parties and Ghod forbid some accurate temperature measurements.
And yes Jose, that IS elephant poop on your shoes. Fresh too! Might be an elephant’s butt hanging over you right now, don’t look up!
In related news:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/14/eaorang114.xml
So much for rainforests. Bio-diesil is more important than Orangutans you know! Gotta meet those kyoto targets! Wildlife and rainforests be damned!
Prospector: provide some evidence that there are people who deny that parts of Canada were under 1 1/2 miles of ice and I will join you in mocking them. However iceages have been here in the past and may well again in the future. BUT it is a separate issue from AGW.
On the note of the James Bay lowlands being lifted, just a couple of weeks ago, there was a discussion I took part in on this blog where someone was claiming that since the sealevel was not changing along the shore of Hudson Bay there was in fact no sea level rise. I assume you could assure them that this is not the case.
Regards,
John
John Cross, there are a series of extremely accurate radar satellites measuring the Earth’s circumference all the time. These machines can tell if the surf’s up at Pacific Beach in San Diego compared to two miles down the coast. One of the things they use them for is mapping anomalies in the Earth’s gravitational pull.
Any news of oceans rising from those guys?
BTW, isn’t the Hudson’s Bay/Greenland rebound measured in inches per 100 years? Its small, right?
“But it is a separate issue from AGW.” JC
This time it is different !! Ever heard that before ?
That is the jist of the argument from the AGW crowd. It is what they are hanging their hat on.
Even though they are being proven wrong they will keep hammering away with fear mongering.
It is human nature to error on the side of caution —- this is what they play on.
And, to be fair, we are not 100% sure that Mankind is not having some small effect. However, as in everyday life on any topic, we weigh the evidence and make a decision. Cost/benefit.
In this case, are we to throw away our best lifestyle ever achieved in human history for a possible, possible one degree or so rise in temperature a hundred years from now ?? Would a +1C rieset be so bad for Canada ? Especialy in the middle of winter ?
As Patrick Moore said; The best scams and hoaxes are the ones that are hard to prove true or false. At least initialy. This gives the media time to foster and promote them, and “coincidently”, to make money.
I think somethings wong,
Phantom: I am not aware of any study relating gravational anomalies to sea level rise, but I would appreciate any links you may have. My guess is that it is not well adapted for measuring this since it is a slow change from year to year. Also, keep in mind that at least 1/2 the sea level rise is due to expansion from warming and thus the mass does not change.
John
John, point being if you have satellites with a vertical resolution measured in millimeters and a database that goes back 10+ years, measuring change in average sea level over time is just a batch file away.
Yet I have heard of no such study being done that found sea levels rising. I don’t pay attention to climatology as a rule, but that would be a big enough deal the MSM would be on it like ants at a picnic.
Odd that the dog didn’t bark.
We know that global warming is real, so if the data supports Global Warming, it’s reliable whether its accurate or not.
“…Reacting yesterday to word that certain European governments and officials are suddenly trying to abandon their costly “global warming” policies, Royal Astronomical Society fellow Benny Peiser, of the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University in Great Britain, recalls the teachings of Marcus Aurelius: “The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane!” ….”
I agree! I also observe that certain intransigent commentors have failed miserably by this measure.
Show of hands…
How many people here thing evolution is bunk?
…. and Maurice Strong became interested in China when ?
When he knew that China would be Kyoto excempt and therefore have a huge advantage over our western industries.
Mo had all the bases covered —- political connections, a scam-compliant media, ect.
He, however, did not see one very important new comer; The Blogs 🙂
Phantom: I misunderstood your comment. In regards to measuring sea level from satellites, the T/P project gives the level every 10 days or so.
In regards to stories being missed in the MSM, I agree. I think that one of the biggest stories in climate is a paper published in 2004 by Fu. Nothing showed in the MSM as far as I can recall.
Regards,
John
John Cross: “… BUT it is a separate issue from AGW.”
I agree – physical realities have nothing to do with the “science” of AGW.
AL GORE and DAVID SUZUKI are a pair of cracked urns
Regarding GreenNeck’s concern about a melting glacier removing a water supply for a nearby community.
I applaud him for acknowledging that the only impacts that matter are those that impact humans. Call it anthropogenic caring: a necessary but not sufficent condition for people caring is the presence of said people.
However, the law of conservation of mass still applies. If the amount of rainfall per annum is constant, and the glacier is not advancing or receding, and there is no other source or sink for water, then the amount of water available to the community is the same as the rainfall.
If the glacier is growing, then that is less water going to the community. If it is receding, then that is more water for the community.
Not even the amazing powers of AG can violate the law of conservation of mass.