I notice over at wattsupwiththat.com
Luke comments: June 13, 2010 at 4:39 am
[El Gordo remarks about temperatures pre 1900 being higher but gee if we’re into UHI issues – those data were recorded in a Glaisher stand. That’s why.]
Not so Luke.
Luke is repeating the standard BoM excuse to avoid facing the facts that many Australian stations recorded a warm period in the late 19th Century – the BoM (and Luke) claim that these warm temperatures were recorded in an older style open thermometer stand (often a Glaisher stand in Australia).
Sadly for the BoM and Luke, Colonial historical records from the late 1800’s are increasingly revealing that the Stevenson screen was in widespread use. That is not to say that older exposures were completely done away with, of course not – but for high order stations the Stevenson screen was being introduced from the 1880’s. See my scanned 1995 4 page paper from the International Journal of Climatology, Vol. 15. In that I reviewed proceedings from Intercolonial Conferences that touched on meteorological subjects. In the early 1990’s I was only able to find the one photograph – from the Darwin Post Office yard said by the NT to be from 1890 – which showed a Stevenson screen pre 1900. 
The photo was sourced from here territorystories.nt.gov.au/10070/312247
Now thanks to correspondents who have kindly sent me information – I am aware that various Australian archives and libraries – both State and Commonwealth – have searchable online collections of photographs and newspapers from the colonial period. Just a few examples now.
Melbourne 1879 – from Museum Victoria.
Another lucky preservation from Tasmanian Archives from ~1900 Hobart, St George’s Terrace, Battery Point, circa 1900 damaged – person is Leventhorpe Hall.
Here is an extract from The West Australian Wednesday 25 October 1899 page 4 – The meteorological report for 1898, prepared by Mr. W. E. Cooke.
A Stevenson screen at Kings Park Perth WA –
can be seen in this 1899 photograph.
From remote far north Colonial Queensland comes this 1896 photo of a Stevenson screen at Musgrave telegraph station
For larger image ex National Archives of Australia.
Added 16 June after readers start finding online examples of pre-1900 Stevenson screens for themselves.
I have a few photographs from the Brisbane Meterological Observatory – Wickham Tce. Clement Wragge was appointed Govt. Meteorologist there in 1887.
This scene sent to me as hard copy from the State Library of Queensland as “View from Windmill looking east” – ca 1890 – three Stevenson screens can be see in the Observatory yard.
This scene from sent to me from the State Library of Queensland is from their Hartshorn Family Photographs – and is I believe the first location of Wragge’s Stevenson screens which is on the opposite side of the Observatory to the above photograph.
The Stevenson screens were I think moved to the opposite side of the building and several photos turn up in searches – some showing telephone poles and increased tree plantings in the Terrace.
Such as this scene cropped from a larger photograph.
If you search the Queensland Library site you will find more images – such as this later circa 1900 view photograph with instruments on the windmill side of the Observatory.
Links to my published papers on the introduction of the Stevenson Screen to Australia – and related papers all available now in pdf versions.
Category Archives: Jones et al
Two degrees C Urban Heat Island in small village of Barmedman, NSW, Australia
Driving from Canberra to West Wyalong last Sunday morning I tried out a temperature logger and recorded this signature from the centre of the village of Barmedman which is in flat country between Temora and West Wyalong – conditions were not windy.
Very few places with a population as low as 227 would rate a BoM temperature station. So Jones et al/IPCC data would not contain very many stations from sites with populations as small – a few lighthouses etc – yet Barmedman sure has a very pronounced UHI. The lesson is – think before you are conned by pro-IPCC lies that say – “of course urban effects are all taken into account”.
IPCC-UKMO-Jones et al errors with Russian temperature trends Lake Baikal region
A decade ago I wrote my “USSR High Magnitude Climate Warming Anomalies 1901-1996”. In January I posted “Surface minus satellites – some differences look political” finding that for the huge Asian gridbox 40 to 70 North – 60 to 130 East; HadCRUT3 warmed over UAH MSU lower troposphere 1979-2008 giving a possible surface error of 0.13 deg C per decade – an error in excess of the rate of IPCC GW.
Out of curiosity I looked at what the UKMO/Jones et al are using for Irkutsk now and compared to gridbox data. Because Irkutsk is at 104.3 East I took the two 5 deg gridboxes 50 to 55 North – 100 to 110 East , puts Irkutsk fairly central.
The difference between CRUT3 and UAH MSU 1979-2009 for the gridbox 50 to 55 North – 100 to 110 East is now 0.137 deg decade and for Irkutsk station minus UAH MSU 0.159 deg decade.
To wrap up for now, a graphic of Irkutsk and smaller regionals UKMO station data compared to satellite lower troposphere and a graphic of Irkutsk UKMO minus Barguzin. Note both Barguzin and Zigalovo have identical huge gaps from 1990-2008 so we have just 2009 building the time series again. Maybe some Russian readers might know where the missing data may be.
Dr Fred Singer calls for investigation of Jones data 1979-1997
Fred has just circulated this email of a shortly to be released Science Editorial
SCIENCE EDITORIAL #13-2010 (April 24, 2010)
By S. Fred Singer, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project
Let’s keep our eyes on the ball.
We need to trace the path taken by Phil Jones (and by Jim Hansen of NASA-GISS and by NOAA-NCDC) in distilling the raw thermometer readings from thousands of stations into a single number — the magical “global mean surface temperature” We need to document the process of how they selected stations. And we need to understand the kinds of corrections and adjustments they made.
Continue reading Dr Fred Singer calls for investigation of Jones data 1979-1997
Climate science at work #1 – Jones et al 1985-86 papers in review
I was stunned to hear Professor Jones say this at the UK House of Commons Inquiry.
The most startling observation came when he was asked how often scientists reviewing his papers for probity before publication asked to see details of his raw data, methodology and computer codes. “They’ve never asked,” he said.”
The Jones et al 1985-86 hemispheric compilations which birthed “IPCC global warming” as we now know it, were both published in the American Meteorological Society (AMS) – Journal of Applied Meteorology. Online versions Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere.
To get a feel for how the Jones et al papers fared in review I have done a quick check of the page length and time spent in review for all papers in the two issues of Journal of Applied Meteorology containing the Jones et al papers. Continue reading Climate science at work #1 – Jones et al 1985-86 papers in review
Dr Edward R Long’s disturbing study of 48 urban rural pairs USA
Download the original pdf for yourself – it is only 14 pages and very readable – Dr Long is ex NASA.
This study looks at NCDC raw and adjusted temperature trends and finds that rural data has been adjusted warmer to meet urban trends. It would Never go for the cheapest prices. best buy for viagra pamelaannschoolofdance.com/aid-3041 The generic medication is clinically approved to treat a range of disorders including pulmonary hypertension, a condition where the lungs’ blood vessels tighten. tadalafil 5mg india In fact, it isn’t an illness in any respect! But, for decades people have believed that alcohol addiction is an incurable disease sildenafil 100mg tablet pamelaannschoolofdance.com/aid-3509 that must be “managed” for a lifetime, and that “there is no cure” However, it’s not a guaranteed thing that all men will encounter ED as they age. Mississippi has partisan divisions: Caucasian voters overwhelmingly voting Republican and African-American pamelaannschoolofdance.com/aid-2665 generic viagra online voters overwhelmingly voting Democrat. be great if somebody had the time to check what Jones/UKMO has for Dr Long’s stations (which he lists). I predict now Jones/UKMO will treat them quite differently.
Remember, four years back I showed that GISS was doing something similar – read Dr Jim Hansen’s email.
USA Dept of Energy Jones et al 1986 350 pages station documentation now online in pdf
It has finally happened, many thanks to a volunteer in California who through the inter-library loan system found a copy of the Martin Marietta 1991 edition DoE book published by CDIAC – and has scanned the entire book.
The Jones et al Northern Hemisphere TR022 book with station documentation details, including corrections is now available as four pdf files. The much shorter TR027 Southern Hemisphere book has been online in html form for several weeks.
Can I just make the point that this is the only time Jones et al published station documentation details. It was not done for later iterations and is still not being done by the UKMO.
These books are witness to the processes operating at the birth of what we now know as IPCC AGW. Information contained in TR022 and TR027 will assist people who are curious to uncover what Jones et al have done with temperature data from their village, town, city, region, state or nation. What data they have examined, rejected, altered, truncated, corrected and finally USED – various versions of station data that Jones et al USED are available from 1991, 1994, 1999 to the current versions on the UKMO website.
Once investigators have a grip on the above they can then compare their timeseries to those produced by the GHCN, GISS and their own national weather service.
We are told that all of the station data listed in Appendices A can not now be found at CRU – these contain the data rejected by Jones et al.
Which brings me to one of the great misinformation campaigns in climate science. That is the attempt by CRU and Jones to direct investigators to the GHCN station data in lieu of Jones et al/CRU station data. The two groups conduct distinctly different processes on station data and researchers will seldom get close to understanding what Jones/CRU have done by relying on GHCN station versions. The GHCN is riddled with its own multitude of errors and is more than a subject for study in itself.
I look forward to hearing from people making their own investigations of Jones/CRU data from their cities and regions.
What about the Jones et al co-authors ?
Except for his 1994 update, Professor Jones tended to publish with many co-authors.
I see that the BBC says, Phil Jones, the professor behind the “Climategate” affair, has admitted some of his decades-old weather data was not well enough organised.
Well, I am asking myself, what about all these co-authors, presumably some of them worked on the data too, otherwise why would they be co-authors ? Is their data too, “..not well enough organised..” ? They are all from big instos – did none of them park a copy on their HDD ?
Or is co-authoring on this scale just an exercise in influence peddling and mutual career building – facilitating a network of supportive mates to ease the way in the peer review process.
I am curious to see if anybody else has thought about this.
Some essential history of IPCC global warming from 20 years ago.
Over at the matchless blog Wattsupwiththat:
Look for two comments by Mohib (21:33:01) on 1st Feb – I thought Mohib’s questions were important enough to try and explain the history .
Jones et al 1986 did indeed reject 38 stations from their Northern Hemisphere study. Note UHI not actually mentioned in the 1986 Table 1 – but no doubt covered under “non-climatic warming trends” – so a nuance there compounded by PDJ ref to “affected by urbanization” in the ClimateGate mails 1184779319.txt link at Watts.
Nth Hem Journal paper pdf downloadable here
TR022 Nth Hem documentation book partly online with 2 tables showing the breakdowns of their station numbers in each homogenization category.
38 stations UHI affected out of the thousands of NH cities is somewhat laughable and the paper should have been sent back by the editor or reviewers. But Jones could say that other UHI affected data were caught up in other checks of his and rejected for other reasons, eg. Category D maybe.
BTW Geoff Jenkins was one of the original 1990 IPCC authors and you might expect would know these things.
In the case of the Jones et al 1986 Southern Hemisphere Journal paper downloadable and TR027 book fully online.
Jones et al found only 3 (yes three) UHI affected stations to reject. Even more surreal than 38 – 3 out of what, 120 plus major cities in the Sth Hem.
So there are a few “nuances” to comprehend in the statements such as “On the one hand in 1986 he knows UHI affects the temperature..”.
IMHO Jones et al 1986 spoke and did less than the bare minimum required to be able to claim that they had adequately dealt with the UHI in global T data.
There was presumably some disquiet remaining in climate circles after the 1988 publication of Wood’s critique of Jones et al 1986. Otherwise, how do you explain the need for the Jones et al 1990 Letter to Nature at al ?
In the 1990 Letter to Nature they compared purportedly rural series from 3 regions, Western USSR, Eastern China, Eastern Australia – with their grid point trends from those same regions and claimed to prove that negligible UHI effect remained in their grid point trends – a conclusion the IPCC and UKMO has quoted ever since.
In fact what happened IMHO (and I did share in a work checking what they did in Eastern Australia) – was that their Rural series contained significant UHI amplification in the trend – hence they were able to demonstrate tolerable agreement with their grid points trends which also carry UHI contamination.
So Mohib, when you say above; “But then in his 1990 paper he takes the position with Wang that UHI is not a factor in temperatures.” Can you see now that is not a fair summing up of the situation.
In fact Jones et al 1990 was purporting to demonstrate that Rural series had similar trends to his grid point series – ergo by their reasoning there can not be significant UHI effect in either. I hope that that explain it clearer.
Jones et al 1990 is now further unraveling helped along by Doug Keenans persistence and events revealed in Climategate emails. That all these prominent co-authors lent their names to the shoddy 1990 Letter to Nature is a classic case of IPCC science at work.
Is the US Dept of Energy still funding Professor Phil Jones ?
We have known for decades that the DoE has funded Jones et al research from day one – probably in 1979; download the original papers and see the DoE contacts acknowledged.
I have not yet found out what the annual payments were from 1979-1994 but we know from DoE web pages that payments were in the 175-$200,000 range each year for the 12 years from 1995-2006.
Register Number: ER62601
Title: Climate Data Analysis and Models for the Study of Natural Variability and Anthropogenic Change
Principal Investigator: Jones, Phil D
Institution: University of East Anglia
Institution Address: School of Environmental Sciences
Awarded Amount to Date and B&R Code :
FY 2006 $178 k KP120101
FY 2005 $175 k KP120101
FY 2004 $173 k KP120101
FY 2003 $180 k KP120101
FY 2002 $180 k KP120101
FY 2001 $180 k KP120101
FY 2000 $180 k KP120101
FY 1999 $174 k KP120101
FY 1998 $170 k KP120101
The three previous years are at this page (I have cut out years post 1997 which recorded zero or nominal funding.
Register Number: ER60397
Title: Detection of Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change
Principal Investigator: Jones, Phil D
Institution: University of East Anglia
Institution Address: School of Environmental Sciences
Principal Investigator: Wigley, Tom M
Institution: University of East Anglia
Institution Address: School of Environmental Sciences
Awarded Amount to Date and B&R Code :
FY 1997 $200 k KP120101
FY 1996 $198 k KP120101
FY 1995 $192 k KP120101
We also know that Brohan et al 2006 acknowledges grant DE-FG02-98ER62601 so it is likely the DoE has funded Jones et al post 2006. I have asked questions of the DoE but I think it is time all this information was widely known.
In my opinion it is vital the DoE cease funding Jones et al, CRU or the UKMO directly or indirectly. I believe that in time this 30 year waste of USA taxpayers money will be seen as an example of the WRONG model for the funding of science.
Remember that the DoE has provided this circa $5million + of funding amazingly WITHOUT requiring that Phil Jones provide data back to the DoE.
Can you believe that !!
Here is an extract from an email from the DoE to me from October 2005.
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005
Subject: Re: Station data required for 1856-2004 Jones et al
Dear Warwick,
Unfortunately, our data center does not have any of the six
requested items. You will need to contact Phil directly. I spoke today with the DOE program manager who indicated Phil was not obligated under the conditions of past or present DOE proposal awards to provide these items to CDIAC.
I regret we cannot furnish the materials you seek.
Regards,