Comments on: NOAA Response to March 2007 FOI Request

By: Climate Audit and NOAA FOI Policy « Climate Audit

Climate Audit and NOAA FOI Policy « Climate Audit — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 17:30:52 +0000

[...] ear and maybe that’s why CRU re-considered their prior refusal. Just wondering. (See follow-up to this here.) GA_googleFillSlot("wpcom_sharethrough_viplite"); Like this:LikeBe the first to [...]

By: FOI Myth #1: USA « Climate Audit

FOI Myth #1: USA « Climate Audit — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 03:31:08 +0000

[...] They also provided information on U.S. stations that I hadn’t requested but appreciated. See here here . The data provided by NOAA consisted only of station lists (the original data having been [...]

By: Peer review of scientific work - an inadequate basis for big public action « Fabius Maximus

Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:50:42 +0000

[...] “NOAA Response to March 2007 FOI Request“, Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit, 8 July 2008. [...]

By: President Kennedy speaks to us about global warming and Climate Science « Fabius Maximus

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 00:02:39 +0000

[...] “NOAA Response to March 2007 FOI Request“, Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit, 8 July 2008. [...]

By: Marginalized Action Dinosaur » The “proofs” are always indirect.

Marginalized Action Dinosaur » The “proofs” are always indirect. — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:01:38 +0000

[...] climate audit [...]

By: BrianMcL

BrianMcL — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:09:55 +0000

I might be missing the point here but if the data has been augmented and modified (one would assume to improve it) presumably the new data would be even more robust than the “lost” 1990 data?

Presumably this new, improved data would therefore support Jones et al 1990′s claim even more robustly.

Has anyone had access to the new, improved data?

By: Marginalized Action Dinosaur » The data will not exactly match those used in the Jones et al article

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:12:37 +0000

[...] The hurdles one must jump through A.1. NCDC contacted Dr. Groisman who provided Dr. Jones with the data for the west Russian network. Dr. Groisman is located at NCDC but is not a Federal employee. No information on the Chinese or Australian networks is available at NCDC as these data were provided by others. The stations in the west Russian network are: … B) The 502 U.S. HCN stations (“KARLa”in reference 9 of cited paper) are: [...]

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 21:20:09 +0000

I’ll try to take a look at the US data. I did a number of posts last year (see Jones category) when we got the China information. For the China stations, Jones et al 1990 stated that they had examined station histories (metadata). However, there is convincing evidence that the station histories did not exist in 1990 and that this claim was untrue. Doug Keenan has filed a misconduct complaint against one of the authors. At this point, it looks like both halves of the data are contaminated by UHI and inhomogeneity. So the fact that both halves have similar trends proves nothing.

This is exactly the same problem that we’ve seen with all such studies – the authors (Peterson; or Hansen; or Parker) make a poorly stratified division of their data so that both data sets have UHI impacts. They then observe little difference and conclude that UHI is not a problem for the data set. The “proofs” are always indirect.

By: Jean S

Jean S — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 20:40:57 +0000

#29: Yes, that's what I recalled. I was just wondering if there still is some essential missing information/data preventing from replicating Jones et al(1990) (here)? The rural data is available, and although Jones has not preserved old data versions, there exists a 1991 version (both gridded and station data) available here. The gridding procedure is described in Jones, P. D., S. C. B. Raper, R. S. Bradley, H. F. Diaz, P. M. Kelly, and T. M. L. Wigley. 1986a. Northern Hemisphere surface air temperature variations: 1851-1984. Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology 25:161-79. (here)

By: Ody

Ody — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 18:32:21 +0000

Should have added one more…

4) They don’t know what happened to it. Happens, but no one wants to admit it.