date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 09:31:39 -0600 (MDT) from: "Kevin Trenberth" subject: Re: Fwd: Jones et al 1990 to: "Phil Jones" Phil Hang in there. I went thru this on the hurricane stuff and it was hard to take. But responding to these guys unless they write papers is not the thing to do. Kevin > > Kevin, > My problem is that I don't know the best course of action. > Just sitting tight at the moment taking soundings. > I'd be far happier if they would write some papers and act > in the normal way. I'd know how to respond to that. In > a way this all seems a different form of attack from that on Ben and > Mike in previous IPCCs. > I know I'm on the right side and honest, but I seem to be > telling myself this more often recently! I also know that 99.9% > of my fellow climatologists know the attacks are groundless. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 14:54 20/06/2007, you wrote: >>Phil >>It is nasty. It is also very inappropriate. Even were some problems to >>emerge over time, those should be addressed in a new paper by these guys. >>Unfortunately all they do is criticise. >>Kevin >> >> >> > >> > Kevin, >> > Have also forwarded these emails to Susan and Martin, just >> > so they are aware of what is going on. The second email >> > is particularly nasty. >> > >> > I'm not worried and stand by the original paper and also >> > Wei-Chyung. I do plan to do some more work on urban-related >> > issues. I also think there is some urban influence in more recent >> > Chinese series from the 1980s onwards. I've seen some Chinese >> > papers on this. They are not that well written though. >> > >> > The CA web site has also had a go at David Parker's paper in >> > J. Climate (2006). David sent them the site locations and where >> > the data came from at NCDC. There are also threads on CA about >> > US HCN (Tom Karl and Peterson aware of these) and also about >> > IPCC and our responses to the various drafts. >> > >> > Apologies for sharing these with you. It is useful to send to a >> > very small group, as it enables me to get on with some real work. >> > >> > Cheers >> > Phil >> > >> > Wei-Chyung, Tom, >> > I won't be replying to either of the emails below, nor to any >> > of the accusations on the Climate Audit website. >> > >> > I've sent them on to someone here at UEA to see if we >> > should be discussing anything with our legal staff. >> > >> > The second letter seems an attempt to be nice to me, >> > and somehow split up the original author team. >> > >> > I do now wish I'd never sent them the data after their FOIA >> > request! >> > >> > Cheers >> > Phil >> > >> >>X-YMail-OSG: >> >>wrT8WAEVM1myBGklj9hAiLvnYW9GqqFcbArMYvXDn17EHo1e0Vf5eSQ4WIGJljnsEw-- >> >>From: "Steve McIntyre" >> >>To: "Phil Jones" >> >>Subject: Jones et al 1990 >> >>Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:44:58 -0400 >> >>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 >> >>X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 >> >>X-UEA-Spam-Level: / >> >>X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO >> >> >> >>Dear Phil, >> >> >> >>Jones et al 1990 cited a 260-station temperature set jointly >> >>collected by the US Deparment of Energy and the PRC Academy of >> >>Sciences, stating in respect to the Chinese stations: >> >> >> >>The stations were selected on the basis of station history: we chose >> >>those with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or >> >>observation times. >> >> >> >>This data set was later published as NDP-039 >> >>http://cdiac.o >> rnl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp039/ndp039.html >> >>, coauthored by Zeng Zhaomei, providing station histories only for >> >>their 65-station network, stating that station histories for their >> >>205-station network (which includes many of the sites in Jones et al >> >>1990) were not available: >> >> >> >>(s. 5) Unfortunately, station histories are not currently available >> >>for any of the stations in the 205-station network; therefore, >> >>details regarding instrumentation, collection methods, changes in >> >>station location or observing times, and official data sources are not >> >> known. >> >> >> >>(s. 7) Few station records included in the PRC data sets can be >> >>considered truly homogeneous. Even the best stations were subject to >> >>minor relocations or changes in observing times, and many have >> >>undoubtedly experienced large increases in urbanization. >> >>Fortunately, for 59 of the stations in the 65-station network, >> >>station histories (see Table 1) are available to assist in proper >> >>interpretation of trends or jumps in the data; however, station >> >>histories for the 205-station network are not available. In >> >>addition, examination of the data from the 65-station data set has >> >>uncovered evidence of several undocumented station moves (Sects. 6 >> >>and 10). Users should therefore exercise caution when using the data. >> >> >> >>Accordingly, it appears that the quality control claim made in Jones >> >>et al 1990 was incorrect. I presume that you did not verify whether >> >>this claim was correct at the time and have been unaware of the >> >>incorrectness of this representation. Since the study continues to >> >>be relied on, most recently in AR4, I would encourage you to >> >>promptly issue an appropriate correction. >> >> >> >>Regards, Steve McIntyre >> >> >> >> >> > From: "D.J. Keenan" >> > To: "Steve McIntyre" >> > Cc: "Phil Jones" >> > Subject: Wang fabrications >> > Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:45:15 +0100 >> > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 >> > X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 >> > X-UEA-Spam-Level: / >> > X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO >> > >> > Steve, >> > >> > I thought that I should summarize what has happened with the Wang >> case. >> > >> > First, I concluded that the claims made about Chinese stations by >> > Jones et al. [Nature, 1990] and Wang et al. [GRL, 1990] were very >> > probably fabricated. (You very likely came to the same conclusion.) >> > >> > Second, some investigation showed that Phil Jones was wholly >> > blameless and that responsibility almost certainly lay with Wang. >> > >> > Third, I contacted Wang, told him that I had caught him, and asked >> > him to retract his fabricated claims. My e-mails were addressed to >> > him only, and I told no one about them. In Wang's reply, though, >> > Jones, Karl, Zeng, etc. were Cc'd. >> > >> > Fourth, I explained to Wang that I would publicly accuse him of fraud >> > if he did not retract. Wang seemed to not take me seriously. So I >> > drafted what would be the text of a formal accusation and sent it to >> > him. Wang replied that if I wanted to make the accusation, that was >> up to >> > me. >> > >> > Fifth, I put a draft on my web site-- >> > http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5620.htm >> > --and e-mailed a few people, asking if they had any recommendations >> > for improvement. >> > >> > I intend to send the final version to Wang's university, and to >> > demand a formal investigation into fraud. I will also notify the >> > media. Separately, I have had a preliminary discussion with the >> > FBI--because Wang likely used government funds to commit his fraud; >> > it seems that it might be possible to prosecute Wang under the same >> > statute as was used in the Eric Poehlman case. The simplicity of the >> > case makes this easier--no scientific knowledge is required to >> > understand things. >> > >> > I saw that you have now e-mailed Phil (Cc'd above), asking Phil to >> > publish a retraction of Wang's >> > claims: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1741#comment-115879 >> > There could be a couple problems with that. One problem is that it >> > would be difficult for Phil to publish anything without the agreement >> > of Wang and the other co-authors (Nature would simply say "no"). >> > >> > Another problem is that your e-mail says that you presume Phil was >> > "unaware of the incorrectness" of Wang's work. I do not see how that >> > could be true. Although the evidence that Phil was innocent in 1990 >> > seems entirely conclusive, there is also the paper of Yan et al. >> > [Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 18: 309 (2001)], which is cited on >> > my web page. Phil is a co-author of that paper. >> > >> > Phil, this proves that you knew there were serious problems with >> > Wang's claims back in 2001; yet some of your work since then has >> > continued to rely on those claims, most notably in the latest report >> > from the IPCC. It would be nice to hear the explanation for this. >> Phil? >> > >> > Kind wishes, Doug >> > >> > * * * * * * * * * * * * >> > Douglas J. Keenan >> > http://www.informath.org >> > phone + 44 20 7537 4122 >> > The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, UK >> > >> > >> > Prof. Phil Jones >> > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >> > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >> > University of East Anglia >> > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >> > NR4 7TJ >> > UK >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >>___________________ >>Kevin Trenberth >>Climate Analysis Section, NCAR >>PO Box 3000 >>Boulder CO 80307 >>ph 303 497 1318 >>http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ___________________ Kevin Trenberth Climate Analysis Section, NCAR PO Box 3000 Boulder CO 80307 ph 303 497 1318 http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html