Freedom of Information – Jones et al 1990

I’ve reported here on my progress with UEA in obtaining identification of the sites used in Jones et al 1990, a study of the urban heat island effect. [Update – the Jones et al data was posted up here. ]

I initially inquired a couple of years ago as I mentioned here. I sent an FOI request to the University of East Anglia, which was refused on the grounds that:

The reason for claiming Regulation 6(1)(b) is that the station specific raw (i.e. daily) urban’ data requested is already accessible on publicly available websites, specifically:
1) The Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN-Monthly) page within US National Climate Data Centre website at:, and,
2) the Climate & Global Dynamics Division (CGD) page of the Earth and Sun Systems Laboratory (ESSL) at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) site at:

In regards Regulation 12(4)(a), the information from rural’ data stations no longer exists in the form requested at the University of East Anglia.

I appealed this ruling, providing reasons as noted here. Guess

I received the following email today promising that the data would posted up at their website on or about April 13, 2007.


In your email of 12 March 2007, you stated that you wished to see “A) the identification of the stations … for the following three Jones et al 1990 networks:
1. the west Russian network
2. the Chinese network
3. the Australian network
B) identification … of the stations used in the gridded network which was used as a comparandum in this study”

As part of our obligation to, at first instance, try to resolve appeals informally, I have been in discussion with the relevant members of UEA and, upon further investigation and work, we have uncovered the annual input data for the paper of Dr. Jones from 1990.

This information includes locations of the sites and the annual temperature values for those sites. We are putting this information on the UEA website with accompanying explanatory text and anticipate that, due to the Easter holidays, this will be available to the public no later than Friday 13 April. We are, of course, happy to supply the url for this information as soon as we have it.

We do not have any information about why the sites for the 1990 paper were selected as Dr. Jones is unaware of how his collaborators selected the sites.

We hope that that this information satisfies your original request of 22 February that it will resolve this matter amicably and to your satisfaction.

Yours sincerely

David Palmer
Information Policy Officer
University of East Anglia

We’ll see what they actually provide and what questions it raises. The sentence: “We do not have any information about why the sites for the 1990 paper were selected as Dr. Jones is unaware of how his collaborators selected the sites” certainly makes one wonder about what we’re going to see. It’s also interesting that only a few weeks ago they said “In regards Regulation 12(4)(a), the information from rural’ data stations no longer exists in the form requested at the University of East Anglia.” It seemed odd that it was no longer available and it’s nice that they’ve located it within only 5 years of my original inquiry.


  1. Bob Koss
    Posted Apr 3, 2007 at 1:23 PM | Permalink

    It’s good to see you making some headway for all your efforts. Although it remains to seen what will be put online.

    It sounds like Dr. Jones might be trying to put some distance between himself and the site selection process.

  2. JerryB
    Posted Apr 3, 2007 at 1:28 PM | Permalink

    Congratulations! I will resist the temptation to make noisy
    comments about the elapsed time between the publication of
    the paper, and the publication of the data.

  3. KevinUK
    Posted Apr 3, 2007 at 2:25 PM | Permalink


    This is excellent news. Well done for all you efforts which after 5 years looks as if they may be about to payoff. I think that once you’ve got the data you’ll see just how big a can of worms it all is. I’ll put good money on the fact that after you’ve sifted through it all and audited the Jones et al 1990 analysis that you’ll find that his claim of only 0.05C for UHI is bogus.

    Slowly but surely you are getting there Steve. It hopefully won’t be too long now before you’ve completely pushed apart the pillars that are holding up the AGW temple. The high priests are going to be very happy but for the sake of real science you must do.


  4. bruce
    Posted Apr 3, 2007 at 2:34 PM | Permalink

    Re #2: I will resist the temptation to tell you that I think you have actually told us what you think, despite your protestation to the contrary. If you know what I mean. LOL

  5. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Apr 3, 2007 at 2:50 PM | Permalink

    Friday the 13th eh? Back luck perhaps, but for who is the question?

    I’m still betting that the .05 deg C comes from taking the UHI from a selected set of towns / cities vs “rural” areas and then extrapolating to the entire world, rather than from determining what the amount of UHI is for each town in the grid and the correcting and extrapolating. I.e. if they’ve noticed a typical UHI would be 2 deg C for a city of 500,000+ they’ll then see what % of the surface is cities which have grown 500,000 in the past century and above and if it’s say, 2.5 % then they’ll come up with the .05 deg C. What they won’t have done is trying to correct their actual temperature measurement grid to allow for how much growth each of them has had. If, say, the average station has had a population growth in the area of 45,000 they won’t make an adjustment of .25 deg C if that’s what such growth would imply.

  6. Posted Apr 3, 2007 at 2:53 PM | Permalink

    On March 12th, I filed an FOI request for the locations/identities of the Chinese sites. The initial response was to say that they were going to process my request in they same way that they had processed Steve’s. So I drafted a letter of complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office, sent the draft to the university, and asked them to let me know if they believed the letter to be inaccurate or misrepresentative.

    Today I received an e-mail similar to Steve’s, saying that the information I requested would be posted on the web right after Easter.

  7. Bill F
    Posted Apr 3, 2007 at 3:34 PM | Permalink

    So are they going to actually post the actual station data or just “annual temperature values” for them? It seems like the real devil is in the details, so if all they post is adjusted annual values, it would seem that the data would be of little use. Knowing the station names might allow you to download data from elsewhere, but that will probably be adjusted data, not the raw data Dr. Jones was working with.

  8. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Apr 3, 2007 at 4:06 PM | Permalink

    re: #7 Bill,

    Knowing the station names might allow you to download data from elsewhere, but that will probably be adjusted data, not the raw data Dr. Jones was working with.

    I think it will help a lot. There’s considerable old data around which can be used to see about what the original data should have been. At worst someone could go to the newspapers in a given area and look to see what the weather report was for each day and see how it compares to what the Jones data used was. I forcast a lot of examination of whatever data is released for sure.

  9. John Hekman
    Posted Apr 3, 2007 at 4:30 PM | Permalink

    Re: #7

    Even if the data have been adjusted, if they only adjust 0.05 for the UHI, then the data should show a lot.

  10. John Lang
    Posted Apr 3, 2007 at 8:05 PM | Permalink

    Way to go Steve.

    Hopefully the data will be in such a form that we can figure out what Jones actually did. My impression is that the UHI is not the main issue here but the other adjustments Jones did to lower 1940 temperatures and raise current temperatures are the reall issue.

    The total adjustments to date by Hadley (Jones) and the GISS is about 0.7C as far as I can see. By way of comparison, the total increase in temperatures since 1900 is only about 0.8C. So it might turn out that all the increase in “observed” temperatures are undocumented adjustments made by Jones and Hansen.

  11. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Apr 3, 2007 at 9:00 PM | Permalink

    John L, when you say

    The total adjustments to date by Hadley (Jones) and the GISS is about 0.7C as far as I can see.

    which adjustments are you referring to?


  12. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Apr 3, 2007 at 11:05 PM | Permalink

    Think about this:

    Dr. Jones is unaware of how his collaborators selected the sites”

    Maybe he should ask the lead author of the IPCC AR4 section – oops, that’s him.

  13. Posted Apr 4, 2007 at 2:19 AM | Permalink

    The way that Steve’s request was initially processed seems wrong to me. Steve was told that his request would not be processed under the FOIAct, but under Environmental Information Regulations. As I read the statutes (IANL), the way things should have been handled is that (1) Steve’s FOIA request was formally refused and then (2) a separate request was made under the EIR. Formal refusal is always a significant action, for which there are rules that the Information Commissioner’s Office strongly enforces (apparently).

    The university did not implement step 1 for Steve’s request, which appears to be incorrect procedure. When they tried to process my request the same way as Steve’s, I told them that if correct procedure was not followed, I would file a complaint with the ICO. For emphasis, I sent them a draft complaint letter.

    Re #5, on the date. The date actually comes from the statute requiring that either the requested information is made available or the request is formally refused within 20 business days of the FOIA request being filed. My request was filed on March 12th; so the university has until April 11th to process it. Failure to do so would mean that I would be entitled to submit a violation-of-statute allegation to the ICO. That would be serious, and bad for the university. (Moreover, Palmer might end up being held responsible, even if it was not really his fault.) Palmer and I spoke cordially last week by telephone, and he was clearly wanting to meet the deadline.

    Re #7, on station names. Jim Edwards had posted a comment observing that the station names that Steve was requesting were not “environmental information” as defined in the statutes. So by making my request for station names only, I was ensuring that it could not be validly processed under EIR.

    I don’t know what the difference between EIR and FOIA statutes is with regard to making the information available (and Palmer told me that EIR can actually be stronger than FOIA). I thought that since Steve’s request was being processed under EIR, a second request should try something else. There is also a substantial difference in how the university processes refusals for the two. For refusals based on EIR, the university has an internal appeals procedure—which is what Steve was going through—whereas for refusals based on FOIA, appeals go directly to the ICO.

  14. Alan Woods
    Posted Apr 4, 2007 at 2:36 AM | Permalink

    Maybe he should ask the lead author of the IPCC AR4 section – oops, that’s him.

    Maybe he has a sort of split personality, a la Indiana Jones / Dr Jones

  15. Jim Edwards
    Posted Apr 4, 2007 at 4:52 AM | Permalink

    Is there anybody else who would’ve liked to have been a fly on the wall during an uncomfortable discussion between Dr. Jones talking about “those people”, “academic freedom”, and “I don’t have time for this” while Mr. Palmer explained the requirements of the law ?

  16. John Lang
    Posted Apr 4, 2007 at 6:34 AM | Permalink

    Willis #11 – which adjustments are you referring to?

    The adjustments made to the historical temperature records.

    Hansen Adjustment 1

    Jones Adjustment 1

    Jones Adjustment 2

    Jones Adjustment 3

    Jones Adjustment 3 Paper

  17. Posted Apr 4, 2007 at 3:11 PM | Permalink

    Re 16 John Lang and Willis,

    Leaving aside Hansen for now, your Jones links refer to this variance adjustment process which I have always assumed, is carried out on gridded data. I am not aware of any significant changes in their “variance adjusted” grid cell trends compared to non VA trends but I’m open to being shown.

    Moving now to station data where there has been an IPCC propaganda effort over a decade and a half to claim Jones et al data is adjusted for UHI. It is crystal clear from a reading of Jones et al 1986 documentation (the CDIAC books), reprinted in 1991, now out of print, that Jones et al adjustments were numero uno for inhomogeneities. A small proportion of UHI affected trends may have been caught in their homogeneity testing net but many more survived through to their gridded data.

    As I have said before, the best way to grasp what Jones et al did is to read the 1988 critique by Wood and the Wigley & Jones reply, all scanned at:

    W & J claimed Wood was in error on 9 points and I comment on these in a table. I have never seen a better source to understand what Jones et al have done than this 1988 exchange.

    So John, where you say in 16 The adjustments made to the historical temperature records. Might it not be better to say, adjustments to gridded data ?

    In respect of the Hadley Centre paper (Jones #5, tail end Charlie author), I believe much evidence points to the new HadCRUT3 dataset owing its birth to the unease of Hadley Centre mandarins at the quality of the daisy chain of Jones et al 1986, Jones 1994, Jones & Moberg 2003, various iterations of CRUT data. I address this in a blog post “Huge variations now between the 3 main global T datasets”: and there is a web page linked with various global maps for 2005.

  18. Posted Apr 4, 2007 at 3:27 PM | Permalink

    This “release” is good news. I have often wished to have access to data that have been used to produce scientific papers. Sometimes the authors have obliged, sometimes not. There seems to be a culture of secrecy regarding climate data, which is understandable when academic reputations and future funding may depend on the manner in which a paper is regarded by other scientists, but inthe case of papers that might be regarded as being somewhat contentious, or politically sensitive, ready access to the fundamental information is vital. a flawed or biased treatment could do immense harm (and has done in one infamous case).

  19. MarkR
    Posted Apr 4, 2007 at 9:24 PM | Permalink

    If you want to get Lonnie Thompsons data, and all the others, a good lever would be a complaint to EPA under terms of OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
    Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies; Republication
    Page 8460

    10. Reproducibility” means that the information is capable of being substantially reproduced, subject to an acceptable degree of imprecision. For information judged to have more (less) important impacts, the degree of imprecision that is tolerated is reduced (increased). If agencies apply the reproducibility test to specific types of original or supporting data, the associated guidelines shall provide relevant definitions of reproducibility (e.g., standards for replication of laboratory data). With respect to analytic results, capable of being substantially reproduced” means that independent analysis of the original or supporting data using identical methods would generate similar analytic results, subject to an acceptable degree of imprecision or error.

    3. To facilitate public review, agencies shall establish administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain, where appropriate, timely correction of information maintained and disseminated by the agency that does not comply with OMB or agency guidelines. These administrative mechanisms shall be flexible, appropriate to the nature and timeliness of the disseminated information, and incorporated into agency information resources management and administrative practices.
    i. Agencies shall specify appropriate time periods for agency decisions on whether and how to correct the information, and agencies shall notify the affected persons of the corrections made.
    ii. If the person who requested the correction does not agree with the agency’s decision (including the corrective action, if any), the person may file for reconsideration within the agency. The agency shall establish an administrative appeal process to review the agency’s initial decision, and specify appropriate time limits in which to resolve such requests for reconsideration.

    Page 8459

    Both the Fig 1 and Fig 2 are based on data which is not available as it should be under the terms of the US Federal Guidelines.

    Also the Fig 1 fails the objectivity test, as it does not fairly state that atmospheric CO2 levels rise after temperature increases, and not before them, and fall after temperature falls not before them.

    Objectivity” focuses on whether the disseminated information is being presented in an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner, and as a matter of substance, is accurate, reliable, and unbiased.

    Page 8453

    If they didn’t correct the information, they would have to take the graphics and text off the EPA web site.

    All it would take is a US citizen and a letter or email.

  20. Demesure
    Posted Apr 5, 2007 at 2:09 PM | Permalink

    Just came back from RC where I was blocked after posting a disturbing question about the logic of a Rahmstorf’s graph. Well, as usual and I assume it’s no new news for contributors here accustomed to this kind of zero-tolerance-for-heretics “interactions” over there.

    Anyway, congratulation to Steve for the (future) data. I know a tenacious Australian who must be happy to access to those elusive Russian & Chinese data too 😉
    And I find quite amusing the preemptive strike sentence “Dr. Jones is unaware of how his collaborators selected the sites” in the UEA’s reply.

  21. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Apr 5, 2007 at 3:48 PM | Permalink

    RE: #20 – Here’s my attempted posted, en queue, at that thread:


    RE: #221 – With notable exceptions due to peat compaction (Delta) and ground water mining induced local subsidence (Alviso) the main problem, historically, has tended to actually be maintainence of navigability. The combination of siltation and tectonic emergence has tended to continuously push the low tide line versus fixed geodetic reference points in an offshore / estuary mouth direction. I would be curious to see if, assuming it is consistent, global rise of MSL would counter these trends, or even significantly slow them.
    by Steve Sadlov


  22. Curt
    Posted Apr 5, 2007 at 8:11 PM | Permalink

    #16 John:

    Thank you for these links. As I read through the last link, it appears to me that Jones et al treat “urbanization” effects only as an uncertainty, so in any of their temperature plots without uncertainty bars, there would seem to be at least an implicit assumption of zero effect of increasing UHI through the instrumental period.

    Am I correct in this intrepretation? I think this was touched on in an earlier comments thread here, but I can’t find that thread now.

  23. Tim Ball
    Posted Apr 5, 2007 at 9:22 PM | Permalink

    It appears East Anglia and Hadley are distancing themselves from Jones as the probing continues.

  24. Sara Chan
    Posted Apr 6, 2007 at 1:32 AM | Permalink

    #23, Tim, will explain a bit more? Do you mean just for the UHI paper of Jones et .al [Nature, 1990], or in general? What evidence is there?

  25. Tim Ball
    Posted Apr 6, 2007 at 8:06 AM | Permalink

    East Anglia appears to have realized, thanks to Steve M and other requests for information, that their reputation is being sullied. Regardless of the type of data, common sense and common practice almost everywhere else would indicate access to data to pursue the scientific method is not only reasonable but necessary. Why else would we have such a focus on freedom of information – rhetorical answer to a rhetorical question, because the devil’s work is done in the darkness.
    I also read that Hadley had put new people in charge of the data processing, which suggest to me they also are aware of and don’t need unnecessary controversy. Whatever else they may be bureaucrats are extremely aware of the bright light of controversy and the unwanted attention it can bring.

  26. KevinUK
    Posted Apr 6, 2007 at 11:53 AM | Permalink

    #17,23,24 and 25

    It looks like the Wizard of East Anglia is about to be audited by Toto. UEA as an academic insitution and if they’ve got any sense they should now distance themselves and as TB has observed, it appears that they are going to. The Hadley centre equally should also fear what the consequences of an audit of the Jones data and methodology will reveal.

    Both of these institutions/organisations have seen just what happens when our resident ‘Toto’ applies the scientific method. Just look at what has happened over the HS debacle and the wider ‘dendro as a temperature proxy (NOT!!!)’ arena to see what is likely to happen. IMO they should be quaking in their boots. This so called evidence for man’s undeniable/indisputable (NOT!!!) effect on earth’s climate is finally going to be subjected (thanks to Steve M) to the level of scrutiny that it should have been subject to pre-IPCC TAR.


    PS Steve I hope you don’t mind me referring to you as Toto on occasions. I think my reference to the Wizard of Oz is a good analogy to what has gone on in climate change. To date I’ve left out reference to Dorothy, the Scaregrow, the Tin Man, the Cowardly Lion and of course the Yellow Brick Road but I’m sure others on this blog can identify who are playing these parts in the current climate change debate.

  27. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Apr 6, 2007 at 12:12 PM | Permalink

    #26. First of all, please recognize that it’s quite possible that their data is perfectly in order and they are being obstreperous just because they can. I would say that there’s a distinct possibility, perhaps even probability of this.

    Second, the purpose of an audit is not necessarily to find fault, but to provide confidence to people relying on the data. I don’t necessarily think that there’s a big deal in this particular data set; but equally, it shouldn’t be secret.

    Third, it’s very difficult to audit things without cooperation from the host. In this particular case, given the attitude of the host, there’s little guarantee that all the relevant information will be provided.

  28. KevinUK
    Posted Apr 6, 2007 at 1:54 PM | Permalink

    But Steve in just about every audit you’ve done so far, you’ve found significant shortcomings. Why should the work of Jones et al be any different?

    I’m particular interested in this issue as you know because as a UK taxpayer I’ve been paying for this. As a UK resident I am currently being told that I must act immediately and change the way in which I live my life. I am being told (even though I do anyway) that based on the evidence provided by people like Phil Jones and Michael Mann that I must pay more taxes, and that I must conserve energy resources (and pay more for them even though I’m conserving them as it is already). I’m being told by the politicians that run my country that if I don’t do this then there will be catastrophic consequences. This is a crock of s**t and many of us (including yourself but you are too polite to say so) know it.

    You are doing a great service to mankind Steve and long may it remain so. Eventually you will receive the rewards you justifiably IMO deserve. Eventually the scientic method will prevail and we can get back to spending our hard earned taxes on some of the real issues that exist in our precious world e.g. poverty and disease.


  29. Jean S
    Posted Apr 10, 2007 at 12:46 PM | Permalink

    I suppose the promised data is available here:

  30. Posted Apr 10, 2007 at 6:22 PM | Permalink

    Nicely spotted Jean S. I have had a quick look at the Chinese data, using as an additional source the 1991 reference that Steve found. As Steve discussed, that reference describes two datasets, one with 65 stations and one with 205 stations. Station histories are available for almost all of the 65, and for none of the 205.

    Jones et al. claim that they selected their 84 Chinese stations from the two sets in part because the 84 had “few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times”. Of the 84 stations, 48 are from the set of 205, 33 are from the set of 65, and the remaining three are in neither. Thus, for at least 48 stations, there are no records of their history.

    The 1991 reference was a joint project, over 200 pages long, by the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. It gives the appearance of being definitive (judge for yourself). That is, if it does not include a record of a station’s history, then the record presumably did not exist. Moreover, Jones et .al. clearly state that they selected their stations on the basis of the reference, and give no hint that they used anything else. So how could they make their quoted claim about the 48 stations?

    Regarding the 33 stations that were selected from the set of 65, their WMO numbers are as follows:

    50745, 50953, 51463, 52866, 52889, 53463, 53772, 54342, 54511, 54527, 54662, 54823, 54857, 56294, 56778, 57036, 57083, 57127, 57461, 57494, 57516, 57679, 57816, 58027, 58144, 58238, 58367, 58457, 58659, 58847, 59287, 59316, 59431

    Someone will need to go through those thoroughly in the CAS-ORNL reference. I did a quick check on the first ten stations, and found that there were at least some changes in locations and observations times during the period of interest, 1954–1983. For example, station 50953 moved to 45°41’N,126°37’E from 45°45’N,126°46’E (about 13 km), and also changed observation times slightly; it later moved again, to a place called “Electricity Carbon-Factory Street” (could you make this up if you tried?). As another example, station 52889 moved to 36°03’N,103°53’E from 36°01’N,103°59’E, and also changed observations times slightly. Station 53772 is similar. Station 54511 moved around much more.

    So, I believe Jones and co-authors have some questions to answer.

  31. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Apr 10, 2007 at 7:22 PM | Permalink

    I suspect that there are a number of people that might be interested in wading through various stations. The blog format has such a flood of posts that it’s hard to keep track of. A wiki format would probably be better for that – in which there would be an entry for each station.

    I notice that Jones didn’t post up which were in the rural and which were in the urban network or provide names for the Chinese stations. There were 3 wmo numbers in the J90 list that had no match in the 65+205 wmo numbers:
    id wmo lat latm long longm
    41 8 52983 35 35 103 11
    45 4 53161 43 54 125 20
    62 13 55606 28 36 115 58

    Here are identifications for 81 sites within the 65+205.

    id wmo lat latm long longm name
    1 4 50854 46 23 125 19 Anda
    2 3 50949 45 7 124 50 Qian Gorlos
    3 3 54135 43 36 122 16 Tongliao
    4 7 54497 40 3 124 20 Dandong
    5 4 50963 45 58 128 44 Tonghe
    6 7 54324 41 33 120 27 Chaoyang
    7 4 50756 47 26 126 58 Hailun
    8 7 54616 38 20 116 50 Cangzhou
    9 7 54725 37 30 117 32 Huimin
    10 7 54476 40 10 122 9 Gaixian Xiongyue
    11 10 54936 35 35 118 50 Juxian
    12 10 54852 36 56 120 42 Laiyang
    13 10 54916 35 34 116 51 Yanzhou
    14 9 57193 33 47 114 31 Xihua
    15 12 57378 31 10 112 34 Zhongxiang
    16 12 57584 29 23 113 5 Yueyang
    17 12 57662 29 3 111 41 Changde
    18 10 58144 33 36 119 2 QingJiang
    19 10 58150 33 46 120 15 Sheyang
    20 15 57799 27 7 114 58 Jian
    21 13 58314 31 24 116 19 Huoshan
    22 10 58251 32 51 120 19 Dongtai
    23 16 58754 27 20 120 12 Fuding
    24 15 59293 23 44 114 41 Heyuan
    25 15 59417 22 22 106 45 Longzhou
    26 13 58477 30 2 122 7 Dinghai
    27 13 58646 28 27 119 55 Li Shui
    28 16 59501 22 47 115 22 Haifen Shanwei
    29 12 57537 29 18 108 10 Pengshui
    30 12 57606 28 8 105 50 Tongzi
    31 11 56287 29 59 103 0 Yaan
    32 14 56751 25 42 100 11 Dali
    33 9 57253 33 51 110 49 Yunxian
    34 12 57504 29 35 105 3 Neijiang
    35 11 56193 32 25 104 31 Pingwu
    36 9 57127 33 4 107 12 HanZhong
    37 9 53863 37 30 111 56 Jiexiu
    38 8 53915 35 33 106 40 Pingliang
    39 1 51379 44 1 89 34 Qitai
    40 6 53593 39 50 114 34 Weixian
    41 8 52983 35 35 103 11
    42 6 53336 41 34 108 31 Urad Zhongqi
    43 3 50745 47 23 123 55 QiQiHaEr
    44 4 50953 45 41 126 37 HaErBin
    45 4 53161 43 54 125 20
    46 7 54342 41 46 123 26 ShenYang
    47 4 50978 45 17 130 57 Jixi
    48 7 54237 42 2 121 39 Fuxin
    49 4 50774 47 43 128 54 Yichun
    50 7 54511 39 56 116 17 BeiJing
    51 7 54527 39 6 117 10 TianJin
    52 7 54662 38 54 121 38 DaLian
    53 10 54823 36 41 116 59 JiNan
    54 10 54857 36 4 120 20 QingDao
    55 9 57083 34 43 113 39 ZhengZhou
    56 9 57073 34 40 112 25 Luoyang
    57 12 57461 30 42 111 18 YiChang
    58 12 57494 30 37 114 8 WuHan
    59 12 57679 28 12 113 5 ChangSha
    60 10 58027 34 17 117 9 XuZhou
    61 13 58238 32 3 118 47 NanJing
    62 13 55606 28 36 115 58
    63 13 58321 31 52 117 14 Hefei
    64 13 58367 31 10 121 26 ShangHai
    65 16 58847 26 5 119 17 FuZhou
    66 15 59287 23 8 113 19 GuangZhou
    67 15 59431 22 49 108 21 NanNing
    68 13 58457 30 14 120 10 HangZhou
    69 13 58659 28 1 120 40 WenZhou
    70 16 59316 23 24 116 41 ShanTou
    71 12 57516 29 35 106 28 ChongQing
    72 15 57816 26 35 106 43 GuiYang
    73 11 56294 30 40 104 1 ChengDu
    74 14 56778 25 1 102 41 KunMing
    75 12 57447 30 17 109 28 Enshi
    76 11 56386 29 34 103 45 Leshan
    77 11 56196 31 28 104 41 Mianyang
    78 9 57036 34 18 108 56 XiAn
    79 6 53772 37 47 112 33 TaiYuan
    80 8 52889 36 3 103 53 LanZhou
    81 1 51463 43 47 87 37 WuLuMuQi
    82 6 53487 40 6 113 20 Datong
    83 8 52866 36 37 101 46 XiNing
    84 6 53463 40 48 111 38 HuHeHaoTe

  32. MarkR
    Posted Apr 11, 2007 at 1:05 AM | Permalink

    #32 SteveM Maybe this is the answer to the rural/urban question:

    The ordering of the data for the Chinese stations gives the urban sites first, then the rural, so opposite to the order with the locations.

    From the text on Jones page link above.

  33. Posted Apr 11, 2007 at 1:40 AM | Permalink

    #31, #32

    Everything from approx no 44 onwards look like big cities to me – mostly provincial capitals.

  34. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Apr 11, 2007 at 2:09 AM | Permalink

    At a first look, I don’t see how one can conclude anything from the Chinese section of the J90 dataset. The data on the page is divided into two groups of 42 stations, with the urban stations first. Adjusted for autocorrelation (Nychka method), I find that:

    Of the urban datasets, only 12 of the temperature trends are significantly different from zero (p less than 0.05), and 30 are not significantly different from zero.

    Of the rural datasets, only 4 are significantly different from zero, and 38 are not.

    In total, 16 temperature trends are different from zero, and 68 are not.

    Moving on to the pairwise comparisons of the urban-rural pairs, only three of them are statistically different from the corresponding pair (R-50949 vs U-50953, R-53336 vs U-53463, R-56751 vs U-56778, where “R” indicates rural and “U” indicates urban).

    While it is suggestive that more of the urban datasets have a significant trend than the rural datasets, the only conclusion I can draw from this data is that it is too short a time period to determine anything about the pairs.


  35. John A
    Posted Apr 11, 2007 at 2:35 AM | Permalink

    Steve McIntyre:

    I suspect that there are a number of people that might be interested in wading through various stations. The blog format has such a flood of posts that it’s hard to keep track of. A wiki format would probably be better for that – in which there would be an entry for each station.

    Is that a request?

  36. Posted Apr 11, 2007 at 2:57 AM | Permalink

    Re #32 (Steve M.). The documentation on the CRU site says “The ordering of the data for the Chinese stations gives the urban sites first, then the rural, so opposite to the order with the locations”.

    I had a look at two more stations: #54662 and #56294 (both urban).

    Station 54662 moved from 38°54’N,121°38’E to 39°01’N,121°43’E, remained there for 12 years, then moved back to near the first location. (The first and third locations have the same co-ords, at this resolution, but have different addresses; it is possible, though, that the two different addresses are actually the same.) The two locations are shown on the map below. The size of the markers roughly indicates the uncertainty about location.

    (Note that the coloring of the area around the southern location indicates Dalian city, not elevation.) The two locations are about 14 km apart. The location within Dalian city is nearly 3 km from the shore.

    From the map, it is clear that the location changes would be strongly expected have a significant effect on the temperature measurements.

    Station 56294 was initially at 30°40’N,104°04’E, then after 17 years, it moved to 30°40’N,104°01’E, about 4–5 km away. The former location is near the center of Chengdu city, whereas the latter is in the suburbs and upwind from the center. I believe that the relocation should be expected to have some effect on the temperature measurements.

  37. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Apr 11, 2007 at 10:08 AM | Permalink

    Thanks for observing that the webpage gives info on the ordering of the stations as follows:

    “The ordering of the data for the Chinese stations gives the urban sites first, then the rural, so opposite to the order with the locations”.

    Now this is from the Team so you have to be a bit careful, especially when they don’t identify the cities. The above sentence means: in the list of locations, the rural sites are listed first; in the data files, the urban sites are listed first. The sentence is correct but hard to understand. Here’s a plot of the locations in the new file – red: rural; black -urban.

    In the western China area near Dulan (38N, 102E) that we’ve been discussing in connection with Dulan junipers, the two urban sites are Lanzhou and Xining; the rural sites are Pingliang and unidentified 53983, both south of 36N.

  38. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Apr 11, 2007 at 11:34 AM | Permalink

    Here’s a little script to read the Chinese data and put them in a time series:

    url< -";
    x<-scan(url)#2664 #42 sites
    temp= nchar(x)>4 ;sum(temp)#84
    y<-t(array(x,dim=c(43,length(x)/43)) ) #60 43
    y<-cbind( y[1:30,],y[31:60,2:43])
    #first 42 are urban; last 42 are rural, reversing J90
    y<-y[,c(43:84,1:42)] #in J90 order

  39. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Apr 11, 2007 at 11:36 AM | Permalink

    Na Ning has incurred a growth explosion (above and beyond that of major places like Shang Hai, Guang Zhou, etc) since 1980. The major metros themselves have expanded both outward and upward. Take Guang Zhou. For centuries, it was an established megaregional capital (in fact, one of the oldest cities in China). There was a spurt of heavy industrialization from 1920 – the Cultural Revolution. Then, once the CR ended, it became a preferred place for Hong Kongers, and outright foreigners, to set up low cost operations. This predates the better known Shen Zhen developments. For a short while, it seemed Shen Zhen would eclipse Guang Zhou. But more recently, Guang Zhou took off with second wind. The ring of quasi rural places, like Shun De, Dong Guan, etc … have become de facto exurbs or even suburbs. Not to long from now, there will be a continous connurbation along both sides of the Pearl River estuary, Stretching from Macao, through its apex at Guang Zhou and ending at Hong Kong if not further to the ENE along the coast.

  40. Bob Koss
    Posted Apr 11, 2007 at 8:44 PM | Permalink

    I found one of those three unidentified sites in my database of daily temperatures. Don’t have a listing for the other two.

    The location is slightly different, but I have many of those sites (same id with a zero appended) and they all seem to be out 20-60 miles. Didn’t have GPS I guess.

    529830,35.87,104.15,1875,Yu Zhong

  41. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Apr 12, 2007 at 4:37 PM | Permalink

    Well, my struggle with the FOI and Jones goes on … here’s the latest:

    Dear Mr. Eschenbach


    In your email of 8 March 2007, you stated that you wished to see

    “1) A list of the actual sites used by Dr. Jones in the preparation of the HadCRUT3 dataset, and
    2) A clear indication of where the data for each site is available. This is quite important, as there are significant differences between the versions of each site’s data at e.g. GHCN and NCAR.”

    As part of our obligation to, at first instance, try to resolve appeals informally, I have been in discussion with the relevant members of UEA and can offer the following further explanation of our response to your original request.

    In regards the ‘gridded network’ stations, I have been informed that the Climate Research Unit’s (CRU) monthly mean surface temperature dataset has been constructed principally from data available on the two websites identified in my letter of 12 March 2007. Our estimate is that more than 98% of the CRU data are on these sites.

    The remaining 2% of data that is not in the websites consists of data CRU has collected from National Met Services (NMSs) in many countries of the world. In gaining access to these NMS data, we have signed agreements with many NMSs not to pass on the raw station data, but the NMSs concerned are happy for us to use the data in our gridding, and these station data are included in our gridded products, which are available from the CRU web site. These NMS-supplied data may only form a very small percentage of the database, but we have to respect their wishes and therefore this information would be exempt from disclosure under FOIA pursuant to s.41. The World Meteorological Organization has a list of all NMSs.

    We hope that that this information satisfies your request and that it will resolve this matter amicably and to your satisfaction.

    If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your complaint please contact me at:
    University of East Anglia
    NR4 7TJ
    Telephone: 0160 359 3523

    If you are dissatisfied with the final adjudication of your complaint by our internal complaint process, you have the right of appeal to the Information Commissioner at:
    Information Commissioner’s Office
    Wycliffe House
    Water Lane
    SK9 5AF
    Telephone: 01625 545 700

    Yours sincerely

    David Palmer
    Information Policy Officer
    University of East Anglia

    I will persevere.


  42. Bob Koss
    Posted Apr 12, 2007 at 4:42 PM | Permalink

    I didn’t realize their locations were in minutes, I have decimal coordinates, so I guess their locations are pretty good.

    I do wonder where they got their data from.

    I have NCDC daily station files for many of those sites. NCDC gets them through the (WMO) World Weather Watch Program. All the China files I’ve looked at so far have a gap with no data files at all from around 1964 until 1973. Cultural Revolution era. Probably denounced the meteorologists.

  43. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Apr 13, 2007 at 12:24 AM | Permalink

    Here’s a reconciliation of Jones data. Three id’s appear to be incorrect:
    (52984,54161,58606) replace #52983, 53161, 55606
    one latitude is incorrect (I use these to locate GHCN id id no match)-Yunxian is 32.85 not 33.85
    The sites are matched initially to the sites in the CDIAC China archive. Then GHCN id’s are located (which require id’s not just wmo ids.) The population and population codes are from GHCN v2 ipop codes are R-rural, S -small city; U – urban. So a number of J90 “rural” sites wer classified by GHCN as urban or small city. A reader has sent me some recent populations and I will update that after some QC.

    wmo lat long name pop ipop ghcn
    1 1 50854 46.38333 125.31667 Anda 110 U 50854000
    2 2 50949 45.11667 124.83333 Qian Gorlos -9 R 50949000
    3 3 54135 43.60000 122.26667 Tongliao 80 U 54135000
    4 4 54497 40.05000 124.33333 Dandong 450 U 54497000
    5 5 50963 45.96667 128.73333 Tonghe 20 S 50963000
    6 6 54324 41.55000 120.45000 Chaoyang 60 U 54324000
    7 7 50756 47.43333 126.96667 Hailun 75 U 50756000
    8 8 54616 38.33333 116.83333 Cangzhou 100 U 54616000
    9 9 54725 37.50000 117.53333 Huimin 20 S 54725000
    10 10 54476 40.16667 122.15000 Gaixian Xiongyue -9 R 54471001
    11 11 54936 35.58333 118.83333 Juxian 30 S 54945001
    12 12 54852 36.93333 120.70000 Laiyang 30 S 54863001
    13 13 54916 35.56667 116.85000 Yanzhou 100 U 54916000
    14 14 57193 33.78333 114.51667 Xihua -9 R 57193000
    15 15 57378 31.16667 112.56667 Zhongxiang 45 S 57378000
    16 16 57584 29.38333 113.08333 Yueyang -9 R 57584000
    17 17 57662 29.05000 111.68333 Changde -9 R 57662000
    18 18 58144 33.60000 119.03333 QingJiang 110 U 58144000
    19 19 58150 33.76667 120.25000 Sheyang -9 R 58150000
    20 20 57799 27.11667 114.96667 Jian 100 U 57799000
    21 21 58314 31.40000 116.31667 Huoshan -9 R 58314000
    22 22 58251 32.85000 120.31667 Dongtai 40 S 58251000
    23 23 58754 27.33333 120.20000 Fuding 25 S 58754000
    24 24 59293 23.73333 114.68333 Heyuan 25 S 59293000
    25 25 59417 22.36667 106.75000 Longzhou -9 R 59417000
    26 26 58477 30.03333 122.11667 Dinghai 37 S 58477000
    27 27 58646 28.45000 119.91667 Li Shui -9 R 58646000
    28 28 59501 22.78333 115.36667 Haifen Shanwei -9 R 59501000
    29 29 57537 29.30000 108.16667 Pengshui 27 S 57633001
    30 30 57606 28.13333 105.83333 Tongzi -9 R 57602001
    31 31 56287 29.98333 103.00000 Yaan -9 R 56287000
    32 32 56751 25.70000 100.18333 Dali -9 R 56751000
    33 33 57253 32.85000 110.81667 Yunxian 30 S 57259001
    34 34 57504 29.58333 105.05000 Neijiang 240 U 57504000
    35 35 56193 32.41667 104.51667 Pingwu -9 R 56193000
    36 36 57127 33.06667 107.20000 HanZhong 120 U 57127000
    37 37 53863 37.50000 111.93333 Jiexiu -9 R 53863000
    38 38 53915 35.55000 106.66667 Pingliang 85 U 53915000
    39 39 51379 44.01667 89.56667 Qitai 70 U 51379000
    40 40 53593 39.83333 114.56667 Weixian -9 R 53593000
    41 41 52984 35.58333 103.18333 Linxia 100 U 56080002
    42 42 53336 41.56667 108.51667 Urad Zhongqi -9 R 53336000
    43 43 50745 47.38333 123.91667 QiQiHaEr 1500 U 50745000
    44 44 50953 45.68333 126.61667 HaErBin 2750 U 50953000
    45 45 54161 43.90000 125.33333 ChangChun 1500 U 54161000
    46 46 54342 41.76667 123.43333 ShenYang 3750 U 54342000
    47 47 50978 45.28333 130.95000 Jixi 350 U 50978000
    48 48 54237 42.03333 121.65000 Fuxin 350 U 54236001
    49 49 50774 47.71667 128.90000 Yichun 200 U 50774000
    50 50 54511 39.93333 116.28333 BeiJing 8500 U 54511000
    51 51 54527 39.10000 117.16667 TianJin 7210 U 54527000
    52 52 54662 38.90000 121.63333 DaLian 1480 U 54662000
    53 53 54823 36.68333 116.98333 JiNan 1500 U 54823000
    54 54 54857 36.06667 120.33333 QingDao 1900 U 54857000
    55 55 57083 34.71667 113.65000 ZhengZhou 1500 U 57083000
    56 56 57073 34.66667 112.41667 Luoyang 750 U 57071001
    57 57 57461 30.70000 111.30000 YiChang 150 U 57461000
    58 58 57494 30.61667 114.13333 WuHan 4250 U 57494000
    59 59 57679 28.20000 113.08333 ChangSha 850 U 57679000
    60 60 58027 34.28333 117.15000 XuZhou 1500 U 58027000
    61 61 58238 32.05000 118.78333 NanJing 2000 U 58238000
    62 62 58606 28.60000 115.96667 NanChang 900 U 58606000
    63 63 58321 31.86667 117.23333 Hefei 400 U 58321000
    64 64 58367 31.16667 121.43333 ShangHai 10980 U 58362000
    65 65 58847 26.08333 119.28333 FuZhou 900 U 58847000
    66 66 59287 23.13333 113.31667 GuangZhou 2300 U 59287000
    67 67 59431 22.81667 108.35000 NanNing 375 U 59431000
    68 68 58457 30.23333 120.16667 HangZhou 1100 U 58457000
    69 69 58659 28.01667 120.66667 WenZhou 250 U 58659000
    70 70 59316 23.40000 116.68333 ShanTou 400 U 59316000
    71 71 57516 29.58333 106.46667 ChongQing 3500 U 57516000
    72 72 57816 26.58333 106.71667 GuiYang 1500 U 57816000
    73 73 56294 30.66667 104.01667 ChengDu 2000 U 56294000
    74 74 56778 25.01667 102.68333 KunMing 1300 U 56778000
    75 75 57447 30.28333 109.46667 Enshi 40 S 57447000
    76 76 56386 29.56667 103.75000 Leshan 250 U 56385001
    77 77 56196 31.46667 104.68333 Mianyang 52 U 56196000
    78 78 57036 34.30000 108.93333 XiAn 1900 U 57036000
    79 79 53772 37.78333 112.55000 TaiYuan 2725 U 53772000
    80 80 52889 36.05000 103.88333 LanZhou 1500 U 52889000
    81 81 51463 43.78333 87.61667 WuLuMuQi 500 U 51463000
    82 82 53487 40.10000 113.33333 Datong 300 U 53487000
    83 83 52866 36.61667 101.76667 XiNing 250 U 52866000
    84 84 53463 40.80000 111.63333 HuHeHaoTe 700 U 53463001

  44. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Apr 13, 2007 at 6:18 AM | Permalink


    Concerning populations; while the current population is valuable, more important is the growth of the population over the period of study. Even warmers admit that UHI exists. What they don’t admit is that there’s been sufficient growth in existing station areas to result in much of an increase in the station temperatures. Plus they don’t admit that growth in the population in the area of the rural stations have had much of any effect.

    I admit I can’t see how the world population can have doubled without the average station having had the local population double as well. (I suppose I should add that to the concensus page; so I will.)

  45. Hans Erren
    Posted Apr 13, 2007 at 6:34 AM | Permalink

    Jan Lahmeyer has this data:

    historical demographical data of the urban centers

  46. MrPete
    Posted Apr 13, 2007 at 8:44 AM | Permalink

    I like to get back to basics occasionally, to ensure that we’re well ‘grounded’ so to speak.

    A conversation with my naturalist sweetie this morning reminded me of some of the basics about “what is UHI anyway, and how does it impact the climate?”

    Some of this has been reviewed earlier on CA, e.g.

    And from we get “In none of these three regions was there any indication of significant urban influence in either of the two gridded time series relative to the rural series”

    This is a pretty amazing statement. There are blatantly obvious urban climate effects that go beyond what mtb shared in the first link above.

    The immediate absorption/release of heat and direct temp impact is only a first order effect. Particularly in any kind of dense urban area, the rising heat column creates localized weather. Storms are very different over cities than over nearby rural areas. (Anyone wonder why New York City gets so little snow? As a former denizen of the northeast US, this was obvious from my earliest days.)

    (Aside: I wonder if anyone has compared the heat and weather impact of the large forest fires from a few years ago, to the heat/weather patterns of urban areas? The Heyman fire near us burned a large area, creating so much heat that a separate temporary weather station was set up to handle localized weather effects!)

    On a microclimate level, it’s quite obvious that obtaining consistent temperature measures over time is highly dependent on the exact placement, lack of relocation, and lack of adjustment of the monitoring stations. The recent development of the global Personal Weather Station network ( is quite telling. Where I live, the urban “growth edge” has moved six miles in the last two decades, and pavement has crisscrossed what formerly was a remote rural area. I can look at my local PWS map and see the multi-degree of PWS’ located in pure-urban vs near-urban-park vs truly rural locations.

    With that in mind, I look at some of the china station locations: it’s obvious that moving a station from an inner city to airport to park-in-city to very-suburban location will greatly impact readings over time.

    Sure, they’re all in the same metro area, but my GIGO meter crackles wildly when the result of the analysis says “NO UHI” while I can look up and see that the city’s weather is NOT the same as rural weather.

    Reminds me of standing on the shore of Turquoise Lake, enjoying the beautiful, peaceful, sunny view… and my wife suddenly says “hey, we better get everything inside, look at the rain storm coming!” — not from in front of me but straight overhead! The rain clouds were forming directly above us, at the top of the Continental Divide.

    Generalized assumptions easily lead to getting all wet!

  47. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Apr 13, 2007 at 9:42 AM | Permalink

    RE: #47 – Even classically rural areas including ones far removed from urban centers have changed dramatically since the early 20th century particularly since the efforts around rural electrification and infrastructure development commenced. In the US, this started during the 1930s – in other parts of the world, later (in some cases much later, as in, since 1980). A change from quasi homesteading and subsitance farming (replete with extreme poverty and low per capita energy dissipiation) to modern scientific agriculture (not to mention examples of “urban escape” industry, typically for cost reasons) brings with it changes in land use, the distribution and gross amount of energy dissipation, not to mention albedo modification. Add on top of that the impacts of the many and growing recreation oriented developments aimed at increasingly affluent and mobile urbanites, and we end up with a “rural” environment whose energetics approach those of the most typical suburban environments of the middle 20th century. Here in California, there is nearly continuous suburban strip style development along the main roads spanning from the suburbs of San Francisco proper, almost all the way to Yosemite National Park.

  48. Earle Williams
    Posted Apr 13, 2007 at 11:04 AM | Permalink

    Re #42


    I suggest you request copies of all agreements with NMS’s regardless of whether there is a non-disclosure clause. An alternative would be to target the alleged NMS and inititate a freedom of information request providing copies of data-sharing agreements with the hadley Centre or CRU.


  49. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Apr 13, 2007 at 11:25 AM | Permalink

    Thanks, Earle. First I have to get the station information, so I can tell which NMSs to target … grrrrr.


  50. John Baltutis
    Posted Apr 13, 2007 at 1:52 PM | Permalink

    Re: Initial post

    I received the following email today promising that the data would posted up at their website on or about April 13, 2007.

    Any indication that they posted the data?

  51. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Apr 13, 2007 at 7:09 PM | Permalink

    Well, I have replied to Mr. Palmer’s response to my FOI request, as follows:

    Dear Mr. Palmer:

    Thank you for your response. However, it does not solve the problem. In your original response you said:

    Your request for information received on 28 September now been considered and I can report that the information requested is available on non-UEA websites as detailed below.

    The Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN-Monthly) page within US National Climate Data Centre website provides one of the two US versions of the global dataset and includes raw station data. This site is at:

    This page is where you can get one of the two US versions of the global dataset, and it appears that the raw station data can be obtained from this site.

    Datasets named ds564.0 and ds570.0 can be found at The Climate & Global Dynamics Division (CGD) page of the Earth and Sun Systems Laboratory (ESSL) at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) site at:

    Between them, these two datasets have the data which the UEA Climate Research Unit (CRU) uses to derive the HadCRUT3 analysis. The latter, NCAR site holds the raw station data (including temperature, but other variables as well). The GHCN would give their set of station data (with adjustments for all the numerous problems).

    They both have a lot more data than the CRU have (in simple station number counts), but the extra are almost entirely within the USA. We have sent all our data to GHCN, so they do, in fact, possess all our data.

    In accordance with S. 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 this letter acts as a Refusal Notice, and the reasons for exemption are as stated below

    Exemption Reason

    s. 21, Information accessible to applicant via other means Some information is publicly available on external websites

    While it is good to know that the data is available at those two web sites, that information is useless without a list of stations used by Jones et al. to prepare the HadCRUT3 dataset. As I said in my request, I am asking for:

    1) A list of the actual sites used by Dr. Jones in the preparation of the HadCRUT3 dataset, and

    2) A clear indication of where the data for each site is available. This is quite important, as there are significant differences between the versions of each site’s data at e.g. GHCN and NCAR.”

    Without knowing the name and WMO number of each site and the location of the source data (NCAR, GHCN, or National Met Service), it is not possible to access the information. Thus, Exemption 21 does not apply – I still cannot access the data.

    I don’t understand why this is so hard. All I am asking for is a simple list of the sites and where each site’s data is located. Pointing at two huge piles of data and saying, in effect, “The data is in there somewhere” does not help at all.

    To clarify what I am requesting, I am only asking for a list of the stations used in HadCRUT3, a list that would look like this:


    etc. for all of the stations used to prepare the HadCRUT3 temperature data.

    That is the information requested, and it is not available “on non-UEA websites”, or anywhere else that I have been able to find.

    I appreciate all of your assistance in this matter, and I trust we can get it resolved satisfactorily.

    Best regards,


    The beat goes on … as the I Ching says … “Perseverance furthers.”


  52. John Baltutis
    Posted Apr 17, 2007 at 12:59 AM | Permalink

    Re: #51

    Anyone find it yet?

    Re: #52

    Well stated. Keep up the pressure. They’ll eventually find the grease for your squeaky wheel.

  53. MarkW
    Posted Apr 17, 2007 at 8:31 AM | Permalink

    Was that freedom OF information, or freedom FROM information?

  54. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Apr 17, 2007 at 8:59 AM | Permalink

    I’ve sent the following further letter to David Palmer:

    Dear Mr Palmer,

    Thank you for your courtesy and attention in this matter, which has successfully resolved part (A) of my request. However part (B) remains outstanding and I re-iterate my previous request for this information:

    “A) the identification of the stations … for the following three Jones et al 1990 networks:

    1. the west Russian network
    2. the Chinese network
    3. the Australian network

    B) identification … of the stations used in the gridded network which was used as a comparandum in this study”

    Thank you for your attention.

    Regards, Steve McIntyre

  55. mark
    Posted Apr 17, 2007 at 10:04 AM | Permalink

    Re #55: Good luck, keep the pressure up

  56. John M
    Posted Apr 18, 2007 at 5:36 PM | Permalink

    With regard to disclosure of data, the most recent issue of Nature has an editorial aimed at drug research. (“Addicted to secrecy,” Nature 446, 832 (19 April 2007), available here if you have a subscription or want to give your credit card a workout.) Although it was prompted by some legal decisions, where as part of the agreement, plaintiffs and drug companies agreed to have relevant documents sealed, the subject seems topical with regard to climate research as well.

    This is a quote highlighted in the article:

    Scientific bodies have an interest in ensuring that as many public-health data as possible are released into the public domain.

    It would seem to me that with all the claims being made about the adverse effect of climate change, publications such as Nature and Science ought to demand as much transparency from climate researchers as they demand for the medical-related studies they report on and publish.

    The article closes with this paragraph:

    The industry’s reputation, as well as the public good, will benefit in the long run from arrangements that get pertinent information about drug safety into the public domain as quickly as possible. Global registers of clinical-trial results are probably the most pressing requirement here. But less court-imposed secrecy around public health would also be a positive step, in part by helping to ensure that companies are fully complying with such registers.

    John M (with a space), not to be confused with JohnM (no space)

5 Trackbacks

  1. […] Yesterday, April 3rd, McIntyre and I received notices that the university would supply the information that we requested. More details are posted on McIntyre's blog. […]

  2. By The FOI Myth #2 « Climate Audit on Dec 29, 2009 at 8:36 PM

    […] record of what stations they used. FOI officer Palmer quickly resiled from these untrue claims and reported: upon further investigation and work, we have uncovered the annual input data for the paper of Dr. […]

  3. […] had had 5 locations in 30 years), with a number of comments between April 3 and April 15 e.g. here here here here and others. While Keenan’s comments on the issue at CA paused in mid-April, he […]

  4. […] reply to the 2nd iteration of the FOI request is here In regards the gridded network’ stations, I have been informed that the Climate Research […]

  5. […] on the grounds of unresponsiveness on March 12, 2007, their partial acquiescence on April 3, 2007, my follow-up on the part where they remained unresponsiveness and their final refusal.. […]

%d bloggers like this: