Phil Jones and UHI

[IanC]

Phil Jones published a flawed paper about Urban Heat Island effect in 1990 which has been used extensively to dismiss the obvious impact of asphalt and population on city temperatures. Both Jones and his co-authors had to separately deal with fraud allegations because of the knowingly faulty claims made. As per usual, they were found 'unguilty', and the paper was not even rescinded. The result was found that UHI was responsible for 0.05C increase, and even that was not an 'adjustment' placed on temps but simply added to the margin of error.

The last few days have had some interesting articles on UHI-

from NASA

The compact city of Providence, R.I., for example, has surface temperatures that are about 12.2 °C (21.9 °F) warmer than the surrounding countryside, while similarly-sized but spread-out Buffalo, N.Y., produces a heat island of only about 7.2 °C (12.9 °F), according to satellite data. Since the background ecosystems and sizes of both cities are about the same, Zhang's analysis suggests development patterns are the critical difference.

NASA - Satellites Pinpoint Drivers of Urban Heat Islands in the Northeast

from Climate Audit

The “inquiries” into CRU, as is well known, did not examine CRU’s “science”. One of CRU’s main “contributions” is the “proof” by Jones et al 1990 that the development of urban heat islands contributed no more than ~0.05 deg C to measured 20th century land temperatures. This proof is an integral component in justifying CRUTEM – which makes no allowance or adjustment for increasing UHI. Jones et al 2008 revisited this theme, estimating the UHI for London at 1 deg and New Yok City at 1.5 deg C, editorializing that much of this would have developed prior to the 20th century.

Jones’ failure to allow for developing UHI has occasioned much skeptical criticism over the years. Jones and the Team have used their offices as reviewers to quash criticism from appearing in print e.g. “going to town” as a reviewer on papers that had the temerity to criticize and, as IPCC review authors, to initial suppress and then include only with adverse editorial comment criticisms like McKitrick and Michaels 2004. The recent McKitrick and Nierenberg 2010 is the most recent entry in this longstanding debate, replying to and rebutting Gavin Schmidt’s comment on McKitrick and Michaels 2007 – all of which direct UHI indirectly.

New Light on UHI Climate Audit

also from CA

McKitrick and Nierenberg 2010, rebutting Schmidt 2009 is in press at the Journal of Economic and Social Measurement.

Schmidt (Int J of Climatology) 2009, which commented on McKitrick and Michaels 2007, was peer reviewed by Phil Jones (the puffball review is in the Climategate documents); McKitrick was not given a chance to comment. In contrast, when McKitrick and Nierenberg submitted to IJOC, despite specific requests that Schmidt not be a reviewer, McKitrick and Nierenberg ended up with what was, in effect, a Team peer review, with Gavin Schmidt an important and unreported member of the Team. As in other incidents of Team peer review, the Team managed to stifle the comment at IJOC. In Climategate terminology, the Team ensured that there wasn’t a “leak” at IJOC. Eventually, McKitrick and Nierenberg submitted to the Journal of Economic and Social Measurement, which was not subject to the Team.

McKitrick and Nierenberg 2010 Rebuts Another Team Article Climate Audit


these three links illustrate the insanely poor climate science that has come out, been used extensively even though known to be at best misleading, and the collusion involved with trying to prop up bad science in the name of 'settled science'.

 

[Old Rocks]

UAH temperatures are all satellite derived and track right on the same line as those gathered from the ground stations. All the whack-a-doodle claims have been demonstrated to be lies from the right wing.

 

[IanC]

UAH temperatures are all satellite derived and track right on the same line as those gathered from the ground stations. All the whack-a-doodle claims have been demonstrated to be lies from the right wing.

What do your conspiracy theories about the right wing have to do with the existence of UHI? Either urban areas cause increased temps or they dont. Your much maligned hero Jones says they dont and the IPCC finds it convenient to believe him because the trend has gone up in the last few decades as the data sets have become increasingly skewed to urban and airport readings.

This latest study from NASA certainly seems to show an effect that is orders of magnitude larger than Jones' 0.05C.

The other two links show the difficulty of changing the mindset of the climate science elite, no matter how obvious, when it hurts their theories. Even more importantly, they refused to retract a paper that was seriously flawed even though they knew those flaws. Jones and the universities that investigated the fraud cases, as well as the publisher of the study, have shown a reckless distain for scientific integrity.

 

[IanC]

still avoiding the topic Old Rocks? simple question- do you think Jones was right when he declared and defended the UHI effect as a trivial 0.05C or do you think the satellite data showing UHI as 1-10C is closer to the truth?

 

[westwall]

UAH temperatures are all satellite derived and track right on the same line as those gathered from the ground stations. All the whack-a-doodle claims have been demonstrated to be lies from the right wing.

Yeah right. Those are the satellites reading 15 degrees high right? And the weather stations that are in the Urban Islands as well right? Of course if you only measure the urban islands and only check them with hot reading satellites of course you will get confirmation. Duh!

 

[Old Rocks]

UAH temperatures are all satellite derived and track right on the same line as those gathered from the ground stations. All the whack-a-doodle claims have been demonstrated to be lies from the right wing.

Yeah right. Those are the satellites reading 15 degrees high right? And the weather stations that are in the Urban Islands as well right? Of course if you only measure the urban islands and only check them with hot reading satellites of course you will get confirmation. Duh!

Just cannot stop lying, can you, Walleyes.

There are many satellites from many nations now up there gathering data. When there is one that has measurements that are drifting off, the scientists know about it immediatly.

Basically, all you do is lie concerning the work of real scientists.

 

[Old Rocks]

Phil Jones published a flawed paper about Urban Heat Island effect in 1990 which has been used extensively to dismiss the obvious impact of asphalt and population on city temperatures. Both Jones and his co-authors had to separately deal with fraud allegations because of the knowingly faulty claims made. As per usual, they were found 'unguilty', and the paper was not even rescinded. The result was found that UHI was responsible for 0.05C increase, and even that was not an 'adjustment' placed on temps but simply added to the margin of error.

The last few days have had some interesting articles on UHI-

from NASA

The compact city of Providence, R.I., for example, has surface temperatures that are about 12.2 °C (21.9 °F) warmer than the surrounding countryside, while similarly-sized but spread-out Buffalo, N.Y., produces a heat island of only about 7.2 °C (12.9 °F), according to satellite data. Since the background ecosystems and sizes of both cities are about the same, Zhang's analysis suggests development patterns are the critical difference.

NASA - Satellites Pinpoint Drivers of Urban Heat Islands in the Northeast

from Climate Audit

The “inquiries” into CRU, as is well known, did not examine CRU’s “science”. One of CRU’s main “contributions” is the “proof” by Jones et al 1990 that the development of urban heat islands contributed no more than ~0.05 deg C to measured 20th century land temperatures. This proof is an integral component in justifying CRUTEM – which makes no allowance or adjustment for increasing UHI. Jones et al 2008 revisited this theme, estimating the UHI for London at 1 deg and New Yok City at 1.5 deg C, editorializing that much of this would have developed prior to the 20th century.

Jones’ failure to allow for developing UHI has occasioned much skeptical criticism over the years. Jones and the Team have used their offices as reviewers to quash criticism from appearing in print e.g. “going to town” as a reviewer on papers that had the temerity to criticize and, as IPCC review authors, to initial suppress and then include only with adverse editorial comment criticisms like McKitrick and Michaels 2004. The recent McKitrick and Nierenberg 2010 is the most recent entry in this longstanding debate, replying to and rebutting Gavin Schmidt’s comment on McKitrick and Michaels 2007 – all of which direct UHI indirectly.

New Light on UHI Climate Audit

also from CA

McKitrick and Nierenberg 2010, rebutting Schmidt 2009 is in press at the Journal of Economic and Social Measurement.

Schmidt (Int J of Climatology) 2009, which commented on McKitrick and Michaels 2007, was peer reviewed by Phil Jones (the puffball review is in the Climategate documents); McKitrick was not given a chance to comment. In contrast, when McKitrick and Nierenberg submitted to IJOC, despite specific requests that Schmidt not be a reviewer, McKitrick and Nierenberg ended up with what was, in effect, a Team peer review, with Gavin Schmidt an important and unreported member of the Team. As in other incidents of Team peer review, the Team managed to stifle the comment at IJOC. In Climategate terminology, the Team ensured that there wasn’t a “leak” at IJOC. Eventually, McKitrick and Nierenberg submitted to the Journal of Economic and Social Measurement, which was not subject to the Team.

McKitrick and Nierenberg 2010 Rebuts Another Team Article Climate Audit


these three links illustrate the insanely poor climate science that has come out, been used extensively even though known to be at best misleading, and the collusion involved with trying to prop up bad science in the name of 'settled science'.

OK. So when will these people come out with predictions concerning what warming we will or will not see in the coming years? And what is their explanation of the present warming? Or are they still in denial concerning that?

 

[westwall]

UAH temperatures are all satellite derived and track right on the same line as those gathered from the ground stations. All the whack-a-doodle claims have been demonstrated to be lies from the right wing.

Yeah right. Those are the satellites reading 15 degrees high right? And the weather stations that are in the Urban Islands as well right? Of course if you only measure the urban islands and only check them with hot reading satellites of course you will get confirmation. Duh!

Just cannot stop lying, can you, Walleyes.

There are many satellites from many nations now up there gathering data. When there is one that has measurements that are drifting off, the scientists know about it immediatly.

Basically, all you do is lie concerning the work of real scientists.

Yes, and that is why NOAA is being sued for kowingly providing false data or can't you read?

NOAA's Satellite Gate | Gather

NOAA caught in temperature fraud..”SatelliteGate” will deliver a new blow to the AGW scam Follow The Money

If you look at the weather satellite data sheets you will see that NOAA processes almost all of them...even the Chinese satellite.

So keep on blathering about lying, you are certainly the expert on that front.

 

[westwall]

Phil Jones published a flawed paper about Urban Heat Island effect in 1990 which has been used extensively to dismiss the obvious impact of asphalt and population on city temperatures. Both Jones and his co-authors had to separately deal with fraud allegations because of the knowingly faulty claims made. As per usual, they were found 'unguilty', and the paper was not even rescinded. The result was found that UHI was responsible for 0.05C increase, and even that was not an 'adjustment' placed on temps but simply added to the margin of error.

The last few days have had some interesting articles on UHI-

from NASA

The compact city of Providence, R.I., for example, has surface temperatures that are about 12.2 °C (21.9 °F) warmer than the surrounding countryside, while similarly-sized but spread-out Buffalo, N.Y., produces a heat island of only about 7.2 °C (12.9 °F), according to satellite data. Since the background ecosystems and sizes of both cities are about the same, Zhang's analysis suggests development patterns are the critical difference.

NASA - Satellites Pinpoint Drivers of Urban Heat Islands in the Northeast

from Climate Audit
New Light on UHI Climate Audit

also from CA

McKitrick and Nierenberg 2010, rebutting Schmidt 2009 is in press at the Journal of Economic and Social Measurement.

Schmidt (Int J of Climatology) 2009, which commented on McKitrick and Michaels 2007, was peer reviewed by Phil Jones (the puffball review is in the Climategate documents); McKitrick was not given a chance to comment. In contrast, when McKitrick and Nierenberg submitted to IJOC, despite specific requests that Schmidt not be a reviewer, McKitrick and Nierenberg ended up with what was, in effect, a Team peer review, with Gavin Schmidt an important and unreported member of the Team. As in other incidents of Team peer review, the Team managed to stifle the comment at IJOC. In Climategate terminology, the Team ensured that there wasn’t a “leak” at IJOC. Eventually, McKitrick and Nierenberg submitted to the Journal of Economic and Social Measurement, which was not subject to the Team.

McKitrick and Nierenberg 2010 Rebuts Another Team Article Climate Audit


these three links illustrate the insanely poor climate science that has come out, been used extensively even though known to be at best misleading, and the collusion involved with trying to prop up bad science in the name of 'settled science'.

OK. So when will these people come out with predictions concerning what warming we will or will not see in the coming years? And what is their explanation of the present warming? Or are they still in denial concerning that?

What warming? Fraudulent data is not data you fool!

 

[IanC]

Phil Jones published a flawed paper about Urban Heat Island effect in 1990 which has been used extensively to dismiss the obvious impact of asphalt and population on city temperatures. Both Jones and his co-authors had to separately deal with fraud allegations because of the knowingly faulty claims made. As per usual, they were found 'unguilty', and the paper was not even rescinded. The result was found that UHI was responsible for 0.05C increase, and even that was not an 'adjustment' placed on temps but simply added to the margin of error.

The last few days have had some interesting articles on UHI-

from NASA

The compact city of Providence, R.I., for example, has surface temperatures that are about 12.2 °C (21.9 °F) warmer than the surrounding countryside, while similarly-sized but spread-out Buffalo, N.Y., produces a heat island of only about 7.2 °C (12.9 °F), according to satellite data. Since the background ecosystems and sizes of both cities are about the same, Zhang's analysis suggests development patterns are the critical difference.

NASA - Satellites Pinpoint Drivers of Urban Heat Islands in the Northeast

from Climate Audit
New Light on UHI Climate Audit

also from CA

McKitrick and Nierenberg 2010, rebutting Schmidt 2009 is in press at the Journal of Economic and Social Measurement.

Schmidt (Int J of Climatology) 2009, which commented on McKitrick and Michaels 2007, was peer reviewed by Phil Jones (the puffball review is in the Climategate documents); McKitrick was not given a chance to comment. In contrast, when McKitrick and Nierenberg submitted to IJOC, despite specific requests that Schmidt not be a reviewer, McKitrick and Nierenberg ended up with what was, in effect, a Team peer review, with Gavin Schmidt an important and unreported member of the Team. As in other incidents of Team peer review, the Team managed to stifle the comment at IJOC. In Climategate terminology, the Team ensured that there wasn’t a “leak” at IJOC. Eventually, McKitrick and Nierenberg submitted to the Journal of Economic and Social Measurement, which was not subject to the Team.

McKitrick and Nierenberg 2010 Rebuts Another Team Article Climate Audit


these three links illustrate the insanely poor climate science that has come out, been used extensively even though known to be at best misleading, and the collusion involved with trying to prop up bad science in the name of 'settled science'.

OK. So when will these people come out with predictions concerning what warming we will or will not see in the coming years? And what is their explanation of the present warming? Or are they still in denial concerning that?

Predictions of climate change? why should they do that? NASA produced a study on Urban Heat Island and McIntyre et al were describing their difficulty in finding a peer review journal to publish their work on UHI due to improper and unfair influence from 'Hockey Team' members.

While UHI is a manmade climate change factor, it is not that useful for global climate predictions. It does shed light on how temperature data is manipulated though.

interesting graph to show that your claim that satellite data and land based data track the same. obviously the satellite data are lower.

BTW- you still havent answered my question about who you believe. Is it Jones or the NASA satellite study?


this image is better to see the difference between land and satellite temp differences

 

[westwall]

Phil Jones published a flawed paper about Urban Heat Island effect in 1990 which has been used extensively to dismiss the obvious impact of asphalt and population on city temperatures. Both Jones and his co-authors had to separately deal with fraud allegations because of the knowingly faulty claims made. As per usual, they were found 'unguilty', and the paper was not even rescinded. The result was found that UHI was responsible for 0.05C increase, and even that was not an 'adjustment' placed on temps but simply added to the margin of error.

The last few days have had some interesting articles on UHI-

from NASA
NASA - Satellites Pinpoint Drivers of Urban Heat Islands in the Northeast

from Climate Audit
New Light on UHI Climate Audit

also from CA
McKitrick and Nierenberg 2010 Rebuts Another Team Article Climate Audit


these three links illustrate the insanely poor climate science that has come out, been used extensively even though known to be at best misleading, and the collusion involved with trying to prop up bad science in the name of 'settled science'.

OK. So when will these people come out with predictions concerning what warming we will or will not see in the coming years? And what is their explanation of the present warming? Or are they still in denial concerning that?

Predictions of climate change? why should they do that? NASA produced a study on Urban Heat Island and McIntyre et al were describing their difficulty in finding a peer review journal to publish their work on UHI due to improper and unfair influence from 'Hockey Team' members.

While UHI is a manmade climate change factor, it is not that useful for global climate predictions. It does shed light on how temperature data is manipulated though.

interesting graph to show that your claim that satellite data and land based data track the same. obviously the satellite data are lower.

BTW- you still havent answered my question about who you believe. Is it Jones or the NASA satellite study?


this image is better to see the difference between land and satellite temp differences

Good post, of course olfraud can't understand basic science so it will be lost on him.

 

[IanC]

Good post, of course olfraud can't understand basic science so it will be lost on him.

as usual Old Rocks was told by one of his approved scientists that satellite and land based temps showed the same readings, so he will continue to believe that and also block out any evidence to the contrary because it is unclean.

 

[IanC]

bump for Dubya

 

[Mad Scientist]

OK. So when will these people come out with predictions concerning what warming we will or will not see in the coming years? And what is their explanation of the present warming? Or are they still in denial concerning that?

You know what OldRocks, it doesn't even matter if Global Warming is real or not.

You know why?

Because Obama already said he wouldn't sign any Global Warming Agreement (Like DOHA) because it will negatively impact an already fragile US Economy.

Didn't you Warmist Alarmist f*cks all say that the New Economy is the Green Economy?

Well Obama says it's not.

Suck on that!