So the original email (in 2006) wasn’t misleading, just lacking in some of
the detail as to why 39 station series were not used.

We are now getting data directly from Australia – this means more
complete series from many more locations. This has been arranged
through David Jones. So, what we have now should agree with Australian
national averages produced by BoM, at least back to about 1910.
Also, what we had in 1986 is somewhat irrelevant.

I have just checked but IJoC still hasn’t back-scanned the Nicholls
et al paper from 1996. I am attaching a more recent paper
(by Chris Folland), which would seem highly relevant to you discussions.

Cheers
Phil

PS

I note that some of the responders were questioning the Canadian data
we use. This can be accessed here. I am told it is also on a Canadian
site, but I can’t seem to locate that. The Canadians also make available
their raw measurements, and it would seem that unless one was aware
of Lucie Vincent’s work, there is no way anyone would know it had been
undertaken.

http://gcmd.nasa.gov/records/CANADA-CGDI_Canada_EC_HistCdnClimateData.html

PPS

Another minor point. It is important in all work related to temperature
(and to other variables) that the long series are homogeneous. Most data
in most countries are not homogeneous, because exposures have changed,
observations times have changed, the methods of calculating monthly
mean temperatures have changed and sites have been moved. We have
tried over the years to adjust data for all these problems.

At 18:50 11/05/2007, you wrote:
>Dear Phil,
>There is a thread running at the ClimateAudit blog;
>Wednesday, May 9th, 2007 at 5:44 am
>More Phil Jones Correspondence
>http://www.climateaudit.org/\?p=1545#comments
>with the text of some 2006 emails between yourself and Geoff Sherrington.
>It looks to me that you have not replied
>correctly to him where you said on 25 March 06,
>talking about the mid-1980′s, “We didn’??t omit any Australian series then..”.
>You should remember that the DoE TR027 paper has,
>Appendix A: Station History Information and
>Homogeneity Assessment Details. That list had about 85 Australian stations.
>Appendix B: Stations used in the gridding
>algorithm. This list has about 40 Australian stations.
>So clearly, in between your “Homogeneity
>Assessment” process and your “gridding” process
>you and your team have omitted about 45
>Australian stations / series in your 1986 Jones et al hemispheric compilation.
>No big deal.
>A quick clarification from you might be a good idea.
>As time permits me I intend to scan pages from
>that DoE documentation and post them on my webpages.
>Best wishes,
>Warwick Hughes

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

Books that strike a chord can have a great influence regardless of their accuracy. A classic example is Rachel Carson’s ‘Silent Spring’. There are still radical green NGO’s trying to prevent the use of DDT to reduce the spread of malaria, primarily because of the misinformation in that book. There is still a significant chance that Gore will be a candidate for US President in 2008 and a non-zero probability that he could win. Roger Pielke, Jr.for one, has predicted that this will, in fact, happen.

First MarkW you see the two Jones 1986 peer reviewed papers,

Northern Hemisphere Surface Air Temperature Variations: 1851-1984
P.D. Jones, S.C.B. Raper, P.M. Kelly, and T.M.L. Wigley, R.S. Bradley and H.F. Diaz;
Journal of Applied Meteorology: Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 161-179.
and
Southern Hemisphere Surface Air Temperature Variations: 1851′€”1984
P.D. Jones, S.C.B. Raper, and T.M.L. Wigley;
Journal of Applied Meteorology: Vol. 25, No. 9, pp. 1213′€”1230.

Then there is the much more voluminious supporting documentation (~350 page books) published by Office of Energy Research , Carbon Dioxide Research Division, US Department of Energy, needs to be studied to gain a better understanding of the Jones et al process.

Jones PD , Raper SCB, Cherry BSG, Goodess CM, Wigley TML, Santer B, Kelly PM, Bradley RS, Diaz HF, (1985) TR022 A Grid Point Surface Air Temperature Data Set for the Northern Hemisphere. Office of Energy Research , Carbon Dioxide Research Division, US Department of Energy. Under Contract No. DE-ACO2-79EV10098
and
Jones PD , Raper SCB, Cherry BSG, Goodess CM, Wigley TML, (1986c) TR027 A Grid Point Surface Air Temperature Data Set for the Southern Hemisphere. Office of Energy Research , Carbon Dioxide Research Division, US Department of Energy. Under Contract No. DE-ACO2-79EV10098

Interested readers should ask for copies of TR022 and TR027 from cdiac@ornl.gov do not be put off by CDIAC saying the books are out of print, ask them to have the 1991 edition reprinted, this combined the two volumes. The DoE birthed these projects onto the world, they must still offer the documentation for what was done.

I intend scanning some Australian pages as time allows.

So MarkW, there is no need for Phil Jones to find any Australian data, he can simply read his own 1986 TR027 book.
There you find Appendix A lists: Station History Information and Homogeneity Assessment Details. That list had about 85 Australian stations.
Then Appendix B lists: Stations used in the gridding algorithm. This list has about 40 Australian stations.
So clearly, in between Jones et al “Homogeneity Assessment” process and their “gridding” process Jones et al 1986 have omitted about 45 Australian stations / series.
I think Phil Jones inadvertently mislead Geoff Sherrington in that March 25 email last year.
Warwick Hughes

Mark

One of the more significant topics posted on Steve’s site is the temp variation with times away from max and min dailys. The constancy of before-dawn temperatures, the effect of elevation above ground of weather stations and different wind patterns close to ground at night – these are the nucleii for some real progress. It is so simple to set up low-cost, uncomplicated experiments to test this in the short term that it is bad science not to. First learn the alphabet, then use the language.

I have already posted that max and min temp is a poor proxy for heat flux, which is more fundamental.

I take the attitude that some temprature variation of a few degrees is expected in a natural system as complex as the globe. I don’t care if the trend is down or up over 100 years. What I do object to is this: An upward trend has been given a label, anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, and it has been called bad, the start of a Meltdown. If the Globe had showed a cooling trend, some cause would be invented (as it was, for a few years) and it would be called bad, the start of a new Ice Age. The only thing that is inarguably bad is the pseudo-scientific interpretation and the lack of need for it. Also, I hate the theft of innocence from brainwashed children.

Thanks Al. I still read your book when I want a fit of laughter. No need to see the movie. History will remember you, but as a gullible fool and opportunist.

How do these people get PhDs and teaching positions at universities?

Ginormous self-licking ice-cream cone.

Mark

There were ~80 odd Australian stations considered in the above compilation and only about 40 used.
I can not imagine what Phil Jones means by saying, “We didn’t omit any Australian series then..”. Is there some other mid 1980′s study of Australia he could be referring to ?
In his 1994 global update, Jones PD, (1994) Hemispheric surface air temperature variations: a reanalysis and an update to 1993. J Clim 7:1794-1802 he expanded his Australian network to include many of these long term small town or rural records showing warmth in the late 19C. There is a small time series showing this, bottom right, page 1800.
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/7/11/pdf/i1520-0442-7-11-1794.pdf
I have kidded myself that PDJ was infuenced by my 1991 work.

For any who have missed it, see my post #29 at the earlier page,
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1492