Memorandum submitted by Professor Ross McKitrick (CRU 31)

"Q1. Is it legitimate to use CRU TS 2.0 to 'detect anthropogenic
climate change' (IPCC language)?

A1. No. CRU TS 2.0 is specifically not designed for climate change
detection or attribution in the classic IPCC sense. The classic IPCC
detection issue deals with the distinctly anthropogenic climate
changes we are already experiencing. Therefore it is necessary, for
IPCC detection to work, to remove all influences of urban development
or land use change on the station data....If you want to examine the
detection of anthropogenic climate change, we recommend that you use
the Jones temperature data-set. This is on a coarser (5 degree) grid,
but it is optimised for the reliable detection of anthropogenic
trends.

6. The implication is that the Jones data has been adjusted "for the
reliable detection of anthropogenic trends." Readers are referred to
some academic papers for further explanation. The first is Brohan et
al. (2005). This paper does not explain how the data are adjusted,
instead it focuses on defending the claim that the potential biases
are very small. Two references are cited in support of this point. One
is by US scientist Thomas Peterson, which refers to the contiguous US
only. Another is by David Parker of the Hadley Centre, whose argument
relied on an apparent similarity between trends on windy and calm
nights. No references to papers critical of Parker's methods are
cited. Section 2.3.3 of Brohan et al. states that to properly adjust
the data would require a global comparison of urban versus rural
records, but classifying records in this way is not possible since "no
such complete meta-data are available" (p. 11), so the authors instead
impose the assumption that the bias is no larger than 0.006 degrees
per century. This assumption later appears in the 2007 IPCC Summary
for Policymakers as a research finding (see paragraph 18 below).

7. Brohan et al. refer to a 2003 paper in Journal of Climate by Jones
and Moberg, explaining the CRUTEM version 2 data product. This paper
also has little information about the data adjustments. Reference is
made to combining multiple site records into a single series, but not
to removing non-climatic contamination. Moreover, the article points
out (page 208) that it is difficult to say what homogeneity
adjustments have been applied since the original data sources do not
always include this information.

8. The other reference on the website is to a 1999 Reviews of
Geophysics paper by Jones, New, Parker et. al. This paper emphasizes
that non-climatic influences (therein referred to as
"inhomogeneities") must be corrected (Section 2, p. 37) for the data
to be useful for climatic research. The part of the paper that
provides information on the adjustments is Section 2.1, consisting of
only 3 paragraphs, none of which explains the CRU procedures. The only
explanatory statement is (page 174):

"All 2000+ station time series used have been assessed for homogeneity
by subjective interstation comparisons performed on a local basis.
Many stations were adjusted and some omitted because of anomalous
warming trends and/or numerous nonclimatic jumps (complete details are
given by Jones et al. [1985, 1986c])."

9. Jones et al. [1985, 1986c] are technical reports that were
submitted to the US Department of Energy, but they only cover data
sets ending in the early 1980s, whereas the data under dispute herein
is the post-1979 interval. Even if the adjustments were adequate in
the pre-1980 interval it is likely impossible to have estimated
appropriate empirical adjustments in the early 1980s for changes in
socioeconomic patterns that did not occur until the 1990s.

10. In sum, the CRU cautions that unadjusted temperature data is
inappropriate for the IPCC's purpose, and for detection and
attribution analysis more generally. The CRU refers users instead to
the CRUTEM products. Yet the accompanying documentation does not
appear to explain the adjustments made to make the data products
reliable for such usage.

11. These references also provide tables of sources for the CRUTEM
input data. It can be inferred from the tables that a substantial
portion of the raw data are from the Global Historical Climatology
Network (GHCN) maintained by NOAA. These data are also used as inputs
for the NASA and NOAA global temperature series. Hence the three
global climate data series are not entirely independent. However the
extent of overlap cannot be determined without knowing exactly which
GHCN series are used for the CRU data set, which was one of the points
subject to Freedom of Information requests in 2009. In addition,
without provision of the non-GHCN source data, and a clear description
of the adjustments applied to all input data, it is likely impossible
to determine the overall independence between the CRU, GISS and NOAA
series.

11. I have spent several years implementing statistical models to test
the claim that the adjustments to CRU data are adequate. I have argued
that an indication of inadequate adjustments would be a significant
correlation between the spatial pattern of warming trends in climate
data and the spatial pattern of industrialization/socioeconomic
development. My 2004 paper in Climate Research, coauthored with
Patrick J. Michaels, showed that such correlations are large and
statistically significant, implying that the adjustments are likely
inadequate. Our follow-up paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research
in 2007 re-established these results on a new and larger global data
base. Meanwhile in 2004 and 2006 a team of Dutch meteorologists (de
Laat and Maurellis) also published research showing that gridded
climate data sets appear to be contaminated by effects of
industrialization. They used different methodologies, and we worked
independently."

Memorandum submitted by Professor Ross McKitrick (CRU 31) "

--Mike Jr.

The truth will out.

"Mike Jr" wrote in message
...
"Q1. Is it legitimate to use CRU TS 2.0 to 'detect anthropogenic
climate change' (IPCC language)?

A1. No. CRU TS 2.0 is specifically not designed for climate change
detection or attribution in the classic IPCC sense. The classic IPCC
detection issue deals with the distinctly anthropogenic climate
changes we are already experiencing. Therefore it is necessary, for
IPCC detection to work, to remove all influences of urban development
or land use change on the station data....If you want to examine the
detection of anthropogenic climate change, we recommend that you use
the Jones temperature data-set. This is on a coarser (5 degree) grid,
but it is optimised for the reliable detection of anthropogenic
trends.

6. The implication is that the Jones data has been adjusted "for the
reliable detection of anthropogenic trends." Readers are referred to
some academic papers for further explanation. The first is Brohan et
al. (2005). This paper does not explain how the data are adjusted,
instead it focuses on defending the claim that the potential biases
are very small. Two references are cited in support of this point. One
is by US scientist Thomas Peterson, which refers to the contiguous US
only. Another is by David Parker of the Hadley Centre, whose argument
relied on an apparent similarity between trends on windy and calm
nights. No references to papers critical of Parker's methods are
cited. Section 2.3.3 of Brohan et al. states that to properly adjust
the data would require a global comparison of urban versus rural
records, but classifying records in this way is not possible since "no
such complete meta-data are available" (p. 11), so the authors instead
impose the assumption that the bias is no larger than 0.006 degrees
per century. This assumption later appears in the 2007 IPCC Summary
for Policymakers as a research finding (see paragraph 18 below).

7. Brohan et al. refer to a 2003 paper in Journal of Climate by Jones
and Moberg, explaining the CRUTEM version 2 data product. This paper
also has little information about the data adjustments. Reference is
made to combining multiple site records into a single series, but not
to removing non-climatic contamination. Moreover, the article points
out (page 208) that it is difficult to say what homogeneity
adjustments have been applied since the original data sources do not
always include this information.

8. The other reference on the website is to a 1999 Reviews of
Geophysics paper by Jones, New, Parker et. al. This paper emphasizes
that non-climatic influences (therein referred to as
"inhomogeneities") must be corrected (Section 2, p. 37) for the data
to be useful for climatic research. The part of the paper that
provides information on the adjustments is Section 2.1, consisting of
only 3 paragraphs, none of which explains the CRU procedures. The only
explanatory statement is (page 174):

"All 2000+ station time series used have been assessed for homogeneity
by subjective interstation comparisons performed on a local basis.
Many stations were adjusted and some omitted because of anomalous
warming trends and/or numerous nonclimatic jumps (complete details are
given by Jones et al. [1985, 1986c])."

9. Jones et al. [1985, 1986c] are technical reports that were
submitted to the US Department of Energy, but they only cover data
sets ending in the early 1980s, whereas the data under dispute herein
is the post-1979 interval. Even if the adjustments were adequate in
the pre-1980 interval it is likely impossible to have estimated
appropriate empirical adjustments in the early 1980s for changes in
socioeconomic patterns that did not occur until the 1990s.

10. In sum, the CRU cautions that unadjusted temperature data is
inappropriate for the IPCC's purpose, and for detection and
attribution analysis more generally. The CRU refers users instead to
the CRUTEM products. Yet the accompanying documentation does not
appear to explain the adjustments made to make the data products
reliable for such usage.

11. These references also provide tables of sources for the CRUTEM
input data. It can be inferred from the tables that a substantial
portion of the raw data are from the Global Historical Climatology
Network (GHCN) maintained by NOAA. These data are also used as inputs
for the NASA and NOAA global temperature series. Hence the three
global climate data series are not entirely independent. However the
extent of overlap cannot be determined without knowing exactly which
GHCN series are used for the CRU data set, which was one of the points
subject to Freedom of Information requests in 2009. In addition,
without provision of the non-GHCN source data, and a clear description
of the adjustments applied to all input data, it is likely impossible
to determine the overall independence between the CRU, GISS and NOAA
series.

11. I have spent several years implementing statistical models to test
the claim that the adjustments to CRU data are adequate. I have argued
that an indication of inadequate adjustments would be a significant
correlation between the spatial pattern of warming trends in climate
data and the spatial pattern of industrialization/socioeconomic
development. My 2004 paper in Climate Research, coauthored with
Patrick J. Michaels, showed that such correlations are large and
statistically significant, implying that the adjustments are likely
inadequate. Our follow-up paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research
in 2007 re-established these results on a new and larger global data
base. Meanwhile in 2004 and 2006 a team of Dutch meteorologists (de
Laat and Maurellis) also published research showing that gridded
climate data sets appear to be contaminated by effects of
industrialization. They used different methodologies, and we worked
independently."

Memorandum submitted by Professor Ross McKitrick (CRU 31) "

--Mike Jr.

The truth will out.

well eventually the truth will out as you say but don't expect this to
effect Chrissy or Sammy's very well considered (grin and snicker) opinions.
they couldn't recognize truth if they tripped over it.

On Feb 27, 10:26*am, "David Staup" wrote:
"Mike Jr" wrote in message

...



"Q1. Is it legitimate to use CRU TS 2.0 to 'detect anthropogenic
climate change' (IPCC language)?

A1. No. CRU TS 2.0 is specifically not designed for climate change
detection or attribution in the classic IPCC sense. The classic IPCC
detection issue deals with the distinctly anthropogenic climate
changes we are already experiencing. Therefore it is necessary, for
IPCC detection to work, to remove all influences of urban development
or land use change on the station data....If you want to examine the
detection of anthropogenic climate change, we recommend that you use
the Jones temperature data-set. This is on a coarser (5 degree) grid,
but it is optimised for the reliable detection of anthropogenic
trends.

6. The implication is that the Jones data has been adjusted "for the
reliable detection of anthropogenic trends." Readers are referred to
some academic papers for further explanation. The first is Brohan et
al. (2005). This paper does not explain how the data are adjusted,
instead it focuses on defending the claim that the potential biases
are very small. Two references are cited in support of this point. One
is by US scientist Thomas Peterson, which refers to the contiguous US
only. Another is by David Parker of the Hadley Centre, whose argument
relied on an apparent similarity between trends on windy and calm
nights. No references to papers critical of Parker's methods are
cited. Section 2.3.3 of Brohan et al. states that to properly adjust
the data would require a global comparison of urban versus rural
records, but classifying records in this way is not possible since "no
such complete meta-data are available" (p. 11), so the authors instead
impose the assumption that the bias is no larger than 0.006 degrees
per century. This assumption later appears in the 2007 IPCC Summary
for Policymakers as a research finding (see paragraph 18 below).

7. Brohan et al. refer to a 2003 paper in Journal of Climate by Jones
and Moberg, explaining the CRUTEM version 2 data product. This paper
also has little information about the data adjustments. Reference is
made to combining multiple site records into a single series, but not
to removing non-climatic contamination. Moreover, the article points
out (page 208) that it is difficult to say what homogeneity
adjustments have been applied since the original data sources do not
always include this information.

8. The other reference on the website is to a 1999 Reviews of
Geophysics paper by Jones, New, Parker et. al. This paper emphasizes
that non-climatic influences (therein referred to as
"inhomogeneities") must be corrected (Section 2, p. 37) for the data
to be useful for climatic research. The part of the paper that
provides information on the adjustments is Section 2.1, consisting of
only 3 paragraphs, none of which explains the CRU procedures. The only
explanatory statement is (page 174):

"All 2000+ station time series used have been assessed for homogeneity
by subjective interstation comparisons performed on a local basis.
Many stations were adjusted and some omitted because of anomalous
warming trends and/or numerous nonclimatic jumps (complete details are
given by Jones et al. [1985, 1986c])."

9. Jones et al. [1985, 1986c] are technical reports that were
submitted to the US Department of Energy, but they only cover data
sets ending in the early 1980s, whereas the data under dispute herein
is the post-1979 interval. Even if the adjustments were adequate in
the pre-1980 interval it is likely impossible to have estimated
appropriate empirical adjustments in the early 1980s for changes in
socioeconomic patterns that did not occur until the 1990s.

10. In sum, the CRU cautions that unadjusted temperature data is
inappropriate for the IPCC's purpose, and for detection and
attribution analysis more generally. The CRU refers users instead to
the CRUTEM products. Yet the accompanying documentation does not
appear to explain the adjustments made to make the data products
reliable for such usage.

11. These references also provide tables of sources for the CRUTEM
input data. It can be inferred from the tables that a substantial
portion of the raw data are from the Global Historical Climatology
Network (GHCN) maintained by NOAA. These data are also used as inputs
for the NASA and NOAA global temperature series. Hence the three
global climate data series are not entirely independent. However the
extent of overlap cannot be determined without knowing exactly which
GHCN series are used for the CRU data set, which was one of the points
subject to Freedom of Information requests in 2009. In addition,
without provision of the non-GHCN source data, and a clear description
of the adjustments applied to all input data, it is likely impossible
to determine the overall independence between the CRU, GISS and NOAA
series.

11. I have spent several years implementing statistical models to test
the claim that the adjustments to CRU data are adequate. I have argued
that an indication of inadequate adjustments would be a significant
correlation between the spatial pattern of warming trends in climate
data and the spatial pattern of industrialization/socioeconomic
development. My 2004 paper in Climate Research, coauthored with
Patrick J. Michaels, showed that such correlations are large and
statistically significant, implying that the adjustments are likely
inadequate. Our follow-up paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research
in 2007 re-established these results on a new and larger global data
base. Meanwhile in 2004 and 2006 a team of Dutch meteorologists (de
Laat and Maurellis) also published research showing that gridded
climate data sets appear to be contaminated by effects of
industrialization. They used different methodologies, and we worked
independently."

Memorandum submitted by Professor Ross McKitrick (CRU 31) "

--Mike Jr.

The truth will out.

well eventually the truth will out as you say but don't expect this to
effect Chrissy or Sammy's very well considered (grin and snicker) opinions.
they couldn't recognize truth if they tripped over it.

Deeply held beliefs die hard. All I ask of my friends is that they
tell me the truth.

--Mike Jr.

"Mike Jr" wrote in message
...
On Feb 27, 10:26 am, "David Staup" wrote:
"Mike Jr" wrote in message

...



"Q1. Is it legitimate to use CRU TS 2.0 to 'detect anthropogenic
climate change' (IPCC language)?

A1. No. CRU TS 2.0 is specifically not designed for climate change
detection or attribution in the classic IPCC sense. The classic IPCC
detection issue deals with the distinctly anthropogenic climate
changes we are already experiencing. Therefore it is necessary, for
IPCC detection to work, to remove all influences of urban development
or land use change on the station data....If you want to examine the
detection of anthropogenic climate change, we recommend that you use
the Jones temperature data-set. This is on a coarser (5 degree) grid,
but it is optimised for the reliable detection of anthropogenic
trends.

6. The implication is that the Jones data has been adjusted "for the
reliable detection of anthropogenic trends." Readers are referred to
some academic papers for further explanation. The first is Brohan et
al. (2005). This paper does not explain how the data are adjusted,
instead it focuses on defending the claim that the potential biases
are very small. Two references are cited in support of this point. One
is by US scientist Thomas Peterson, which refers to the contiguous US
only. Another is by David Parker of the Hadley Centre, whose argument
relied on an apparent similarity between trends on windy and calm
nights. No references to papers critical of Parker's methods are
cited. Section 2.3.3 of Brohan et al. states that to properly adjust
the data would require a global comparison of urban versus rural
records, but classifying records in this way is not possible since "no
such complete meta-data are available" (p. 11), so the authors instead
impose the assumption that the bias is no larger than 0.006 degrees
per century. This assumption later appears in the 2007 IPCC Summary
for Policymakers as a research finding (see paragraph 18 below).

7. Brohan et al. refer to a 2003 paper in Journal of Climate by Jones
and Moberg, explaining the CRUTEM version 2 data product. This paper
also has little information about the data adjustments. Reference is
made to combining multiple site records into a single series, but not
to removing non-climatic contamination. Moreover, the article points
out (page 208) that it is difficult to say what homogeneity
adjustments have been applied since the original data sources do not
always include this information.

8. The other reference on the website is to a 1999 Reviews of
Geophysics paper by Jones, New, Parker et. al. This paper emphasizes
that non-climatic influences (therein referred to as
"inhomogeneities") must be corrected (Section 2, p. 37) for the data
to be useful for climatic research. The part of the paper that
provides information on the adjustments is Section 2.1, consisting of
only 3 paragraphs, none of which explains the CRU procedures. The only
explanatory statement is (page 174):

"All 2000+ station time series used have been assessed for homogeneity
by subjective interstation comparisons performed on a local basis.
Many stations were adjusted and some omitted because of anomalous
warming trends and/or numerous nonclimatic jumps (complete details are
given by Jones et al. [1985, 1986c])."

9. Jones et al. [1985, 1986c] are technical reports that were
submitted to the US Department of Energy, but they only cover data
sets ending in the early 1980s, whereas the data under dispute herein
is the post-1979 interval. Even if the adjustments were adequate in
the pre-1980 interval it is likely impossible to have estimated
appropriate empirical adjustments in the early 1980s for changes in
socioeconomic patterns that did not occur until the 1990s.

10. In sum, the CRU cautions that unadjusted temperature data is
inappropriate for the IPCC's purpose, and for detection and
attribution analysis more generally. The CRU refers users instead to
the CRUTEM products. Yet the accompanying documentation does not
appear to explain the adjustments made to make the data products
reliable for such usage.

11. These references also provide tables of sources for the CRUTEM
input data. It can be inferred from the tables that a substantial
portion of the raw data are from the Global Historical Climatology
Network (GHCN) maintained by NOAA. These data are also used as inputs
for the NASA and NOAA global temperature series. Hence the three
global climate data series are not entirely independent. However the
extent of overlap cannot be determined without knowing exactly which
GHCN series are used for the CRU data set, which was one of the points
subject to Freedom of Information requests in 2009. In addition,
without provision of the non-GHCN source data, and a clear description
of the adjustments applied to all input data, it is likely impossible
to determine the overall independence between the CRU, GISS and NOAA
series.

11. I have spent several years implementing statistical models to test
the claim that the adjustments to CRU data are adequate. I have argued
that an indication of inadequate adjustments would be a significant
correlation between the spatial pattern of warming trends in climate
data and the spatial pattern of industrialization/socioeconomic
development. My 2004 paper in Climate Research, coauthored with
Patrick J. Michaels, showed that such correlations are large and
statistically significant, implying that the adjustments are likely
inadequate. Our follow-up paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research
in 2007 re-established these results on a new and larger global data
base. Meanwhile in 2004 and 2006 a team of Dutch meteorologists (de
Laat and Maurellis) also published research showing that gridded
climate data sets appear to be contaminated by effects of
industrialization. They used different methodologies, and we worked
independently."

Memorandum submitted by Professor Ross McKitrick (CRU 31) "

--Mike Jr.

The truth will out.

well eventually the truth will out as you say but don't expect this to
effect Chrissy or Sammy's very well considered (grin and snicker)
opinions.
they couldn't recognize truth if they tripped over it.

Deeply held beliefs die hard. All I ask of my friends is that they
tell me the truth.

--Mike Jr.

Mike a wise man (David Hume) once wrote the following and it applies here.
Probably in some measure to us all (except for you and I, of
course...GRIN)...this was written some time ago and is a bit hard to read
because of the styles of the times (run on sentenances) but I think you
might enjoy it.

"There is, indeed, a more mitigated scepticism or academical philosophy,
which may be both durable and useful, and which may, in part, be the result
of this Pyrrhonism, or excessive scepticism, when its undistinguished doubts
are, in some measure, corrected by common sense and reflection. The greater
part of mankind are naturally apt to be affirmative and dogmatical in their
opinions; and while they see objects only on one side, and have no idea of
any counter-poising argument, they throw themselves precipitately into the
principles, to which they are inclined; nor have they any indulgence for
those who entertain opposite sentiments. To hesitate or balance perplexes
their understanding, checks their passion, and suspends their action. They
are, therefore, impatient till they escape from a state, which to them is so
uneasy: and they think, that they could never remove themselves far enough
from it, by the violence of their affirmations and obstinacy of their
belief. But could such dogmatical reasoners become sensible of the strange
infirmities of human understanding, even in its most perfect state, and when
most accurate and cautious in its determinations; such a reflection would
naturally inspire them with more modesty and reserve, and diminish their
fond opinion of themselves, and their prejudice against antagonists. The
illiterate may reflect on the disposition of the learned, who, amidst all
the advantages of study and reflection, are commonly still diffident in
their determinations: and if any of the learned be inclined, from their
natural temper, to haughtiness and obstinacy, a small tincture of Pyrrhonism
might abate their pride, by showing them, that the few advantages, which
they have attained over their fellows, are but inconsiderable, if compared
with the universal perplexity and confusion, which is inherent in human
nature. In general, there is a degree of doubt, and caution, and modesty,
which, in all kinds of scrutiny and decision, ought for ever to accompany a
just reasoner."

?

On Feb 27, 1:25*pm, "David Staup" wrote:
"Mike Jr" wrote in message

...
On Feb 27, 10:26 am, "David Staup" wrote:



"Mike Jr" wrote in message

....

"Q1. Is it legitimate to use CRU TS 2.0 to 'detect anthropogenic
climate change' (IPCC language)?

A1. No. CRU TS 2.0 is specifically not designed for climate change
detection or attribution in the classic IPCC sense. The classic IPCC
detection issue deals with the distinctly anthropogenic climate
changes we are already experiencing. Therefore it is necessary, for
IPCC detection to work, to remove all influences of urban development
or land use change on the station data....If you want to examine the
detection of anthropogenic climate change, we recommend that you use
the Jones temperature data-set. This is on a coarser (5 degree) grid,
but it is optimised for the reliable detection of anthropogenic
trends.

6. The implication is that the Jones data has been adjusted "for the
reliable detection of anthropogenic trends." Readers are referred to
some academic papers for further explanation. The first is Brohan et
al. (2005). This paper does not explain how the data are adjusted,
instead it focuses on defending the claim that the potential biases
are very small. Two references are cited in support of this point. One
is by US scientist Thomas Peterson, which refers to the contiguous US
only. Another is by David Parker of the Hadley Centre, whose argument
relied on an apparent similarity between trends on windy and calm
nights. No references to papers critical of Parker's methods are
cited. Section 2.3.3 of Brohan et al. states that to properly adjust
the data would require a global comparison of urban versus rural
records, but classifying records in this way is not possible since "no
such complete meta-data are available" (p. 11), so the authors instead
impose the assumption that the bias is no larger than 0.006 degrees
per century. This assumption later appears in the 2007 IPCC Summary
for Policymakers as a research finding (see paragraph 18 below).

7. Brohan et al. refer to a 2003 paper in Journal of Climate by Jones
and Moberg, explaining the CRUTEM version 2 data product. This paper
also has little information about the data adjustments. Reference is
made to combining multiple site records into a single series, but not
to removing non-climatic contamination. Moreover, the article points
out (page 208) that it is difficult to say what homogeneity
adjustments have been applied since the original data sources do not
always include this information.

8. The other reference on the website is to a 1999 Reviews of
Geophysics paper by Jones, New, Parker et. al. This paper emphasizes
that non-climatic influences (therein referred to as
"inhomogeneities") must be corrected (Section 2, p. 37) for the data
to be useful for climatic research. The part of the paper that
provides information on the adjustments is Section 2.1, consisting of
only 3 paragraphs, none of which explains the CRU procedures. The only
explanatory statement is (page 174):

"All 2000+ station time series used have been assessed for homogeneity
by subjective interstation comparisons performed on a local basis.
Many stations were adjusted and some omitted because of anomalous
warming trends and/or numerous nonclimatic jumps (complete details are
given by Jones et al. [1985, 1986c])."

9. Jones et al. [1985, 1986c] are technical reports that were
submitted to the US Department of Energy, but they only cover data
sets ending in the early 1980s, whereas the data under dispute herein
is the post-1979 interval. Even if the adjustments were adequate in
the pre-1980 interval it is likely impossible to have estimated
appropriate empirical adjustments in the early 1980s for changes in
socioeconomic patterns that did not occur until the 1990s.

10. In sum, the CRU cautions that unadjusted temperature data is
inappropriate for the IPCC's purpose, and for detection and
attribution analysis more generally. The CRU refers users instead to
the CRUTEM products. Yet the accompanying documentation does not
appear to explain the adjustments made to make the data products
reliable for such usage.

11. These references also provide tables of sources for the CRUTEM
input data. It can be inferred from the tables that a substantial
portion of the raw data are from the Global Historical Climatology
Network (GHCN) maintained by NOAA. These data are also used as inputs
for the NASA and NOAA global temperature series. Hence the three
global climate data series are not entirely independent. However the
extent of overlap cannot be determined without knowing exactly which
GHCN series are used for the CRU data set, which was one of the points
subject to Freedom of Information requests in 2009. In addition,
without provision of the non-GHCN source data, and a clear description
of the adjustments applied to all input data, it is likely impossible
to determine the overall independence between the CRU, GISS and NOAA
series.

11. I have spent several years implementing statistical models to test
the claim that the adjustments to CRU data are adequate. I have argued
that an indication of inadequate adjustments would be a significant
correlation between the spatial pattern of warming trends in climate
data and the spatial pattern of industrialization/socioeconomic
development. My 2004 paper in Climate Research, coauthored with
Patrick J. Michaels, showed that such correlations are large and
statistically significant, implying that the adjustments are likely
inadequate. Our follow-up paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research
in 2007 re-established these results on a new and larger global data
base. Meanwhile in 2004 and 2006 a team of Dutch meteorologists (de
Laat and Maurellis) also published research showing that gridded
climate data sets appear to be contaminated by effects of
industrialization. They used different methodologies, and we worked
independently."

Memorandum submitted by Professor Ross McKitrick (CRU 31) "

--Mike Jr.

The truth will out.

well eventually the truth will out as you say but don't expect this to
effect Chrissy or Sammy's very well considered (grin and snicker)
opinions.
they couldn't recognize truth if they tripped over it.

Deeply held beliefs die hard. *All I ask of my friends is that they
tell me the truth.

--Mike Jr.

Mike a wise man (David Hume) once wrote the following and it applies here..
Probably in some measure to us all (except for you and I, of
course...GRIN)...this was written some time ago and is a bit hard to read
because of the styles of the times (run on sentenances) but I think you
might enjoy it.

"There is, indeed, a more mitigated scepticism or academical philosophy,
which may be both durable and useful, and which may, in part, be the result
of this Pyrrhonism, or excessive scepticism, when its undistinguished doubts
are, in some measure, corrected by common sense and reflection. The greater
part of mankind are naturally apt to be affirmative and dogmatical in their
opinions; and while they see objects only on one side, and have no idea of
any counter-poising argument, they throw themselves precipitately into the
principles, to which they are inclined; nor have they any indulgence for
those who entertain opposite sentiments. To hesitate or balance perplexes
their understanding, checks their passion, and suspends their action. They
are, therefore, impatient till they escape from a state, which to them is so
uneasy: and they think, that they could never remove themselves far enough
from it, by the violence of their affirmations and obstinacy of their
belief. But could such dogmatical reasoners become sensible of the strange
infirmities of human understanding, even in its most perfect state, and when
most accurate and cautious in its determinations; such a reflection would
naturally inspire them with more modesty and reserve, and diminish their
fond opinion of themselves, and their prejudice against antagonists. The
illiterate may reflect on the disposition of the learned, who, amidst all
the advantages of study and reflection, are commonly still diffident in
their determinations: and if any of the learned be inclined, from their
natural temper, to haughtiness and obstinacy, a small tincture of Pyrrhonism
might abate their pride, by showing them, that the few advantages, which
they have attained over their fellows, are but inconsiderable, if compared
with the universal perplexity and confusion, which is inherent in human
nature. In general, there is a degree of doubt, and caution, and modesty,
which, in all kinds of scrutiny and decision, ought for ever to accompany a
just reasoner."

?

Wow. Yes, indeed.

Maybe now I am finally old enough to be humble and to realize my
limitations. I still just want the truth and still think that science
is the best way to find it.

Thank you.

--Mike Jr.

"Mike Jr" wrote in message
...
On Feb 27, 1:25 pm, "David Staup" wrote:
"Mike Jr" wrote in message

...
On Feb 27, 10:26 am, "David Staup" wrote:



"Mike Jr" wrote in message

...

"Q1. Is it legitimate to use CRU TS 2.0 to 'detect anthropogenic
climate change' (IPCC language)?

A1. No. CRU TS 2.0 is specifically not designed for climate change
detection or attribution in the classic IPCC sense. The classic IPCC
detection issue deals with the distinctly anthropogenic climate
changes we are already experiencing. Therefore it is necessary, for
IPCC detection to work, to remove all influences of urban development
or land use change on the station data....If you want to examine the
detection of anthropogenic climate change, we recommend that you use
the Jones temperature data-set. This is on a coarser (5 degree) grid,
but it is optimised for the reliable detection of anthropogenic
trends.

6. The implication is that the Jones data has been adjusted "for the
reliable detection of anthropogenic trends." Readers are referred to
some academic papers for further explanation. The first is Brohan et
al. (2005). This paper does not explain how the data are adjusted,
instead it focuses on defending the claim that the potential biases
are very small. Two references are cited in support of this point. One
is by US scientist Thomas Peterson, which refers to the contiguous US
only. Another is by David Parker of the Hadley Centre, whose argument
relied on an apparent similarity between trends on windy and calm
nights. No references to papers critical of Parker's methods are
cited. Section 2.3.3 of Brohan et al. states that to properly adjust
the data would require a global comparison of urban versus rural
records, but classifying records in this way is not possible since "no
such complete meta-data are available" (p. 11), so the authors instead
impose the assumption that the bias is no larger than 0.006 degrees
per century. This assumption later appears in the 2007 IPCC Summary
for Policymakers as a research finding (see paragraph 18 below).

7. Brohan et al. refer to a 2003 paper in Journal of Climate by Jones
and Moberg, explaining the CRUTEM version 2 data product. This paper
also has little information about the data adjustments. Reference is
made to combining multiple site records into a single series, but not
to removing non-climatic contamination. Moreover, the article points
out (page 208) that it is difficult to say what homogeneity
adjustments have been applied since the original data sources do not
always include this information.

8. The other reference on the website is to a 1999 Reviews of
Geophysics paper by Jones, New, Parker et. al. This paper emphasizes
that non-climatic influences (therein referred to as
"inhomogeneities") must be corrected (Section 2, p. 37) for the data
to be useful for climatic research. The part of the paper that
provides information on the adjustments is Section 2.1, consisting of
only 3 paragraphs, none of which explains the CRU procedures. The only
explanatory statement is (page 174):

"All 2000+ station time series used have been assessed for homogeneity
by subjective interstation comparisons performed on a local basis.
Many stations were adjusted and some omitted because of anomalous
warming trends and/or numerous nonclimatic jumps (complete details are
given by Jones et al. [1985, 1986c])."

9. Jones et al. [1985, 1986c] are technical reports that were
submitted to the US Department of Energy, but they only cover data
sets ending in the early 1980s, whereas the data under dispute herein
is the post-1979 interval. Even if the adjustments were adequate in
the pre-1980 interval it is likely impossible to have estimated
appropriate empirical adjustments in the early 1980s for changes in
socioeconomic patterns that did not occur until the 1990s.

10. In sum, the CRU cautions that unadjusted temperature data is
inappropriate for the IPCC's purpose, and for detection and
attribution analysis more generally. The CRU refers users instead to
the CRUTEM products. Yet the accompanying documentation does not
appear to explain the adjustments made to make the data products
reliable for such usage.

11. These references also provide tables of sources for the CRUTEM
input data. It can be inferred from the tables that a substantial
portion of the raw data are from the Global Historical Climatology
Network (GHCN) maintained by NOAA. These data are also used as inputs
for the NASA and NOAA global temperature series. Hence the three
global climate data series are not entirely independent. However the
extent of overlap cannot be determined without knowing exactly which
GHCN series are used for the CRU data set, which was one of the points
subject to Freedom of Information requests in 2009. In addition,
without provision of the non-GHCN source data, and a clear description
of the adjustments applied to all input data, it is likely impossible
to determine the overall independence between the CRU, GISS and NOAA
series.

11. I have spent several years implementing statistical models to test
the claim that the adjustments to CRU data are adequate. I have argued
that an indication of inadequate adjustments would be a significant
correlation between the spatial pattern of warming trends in climate
data and the spatial pattern of industrialization/socioeconomic
development. My 2004 paper in Climate Research, coauthored with
Patrick J. Michaels, showed that such correlations are large and
statistically significant, implying that the adjustments are likely
inadequate. Our follow-up paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research
in 2007 re-established these results on a new and larger global data
base. Meanwhile in 2004 and 2006 a team of Dutch meteorologists (de
Laat and Maurellis) also published research showing that gridded
climate data sets appear to be contaminated by effects of
industrialization. They used different methodologies, and we worked
independently."

Memorandum submitted by Professor Ross McKitrick (CRU 31) "

--Mike Jr.

The truth will out.

well eventually the truth will out as you say but don't expect this to
effect Chrissy or Sammy's very well considered (grin and snicker)
opinions.
they couldn't recognize truth if they tripped over it.

Deeply held beliefs die hard. All I ask of my friends is that they
tell me the truth.

--Mike Jr.

Mike a wise man (David Hume) once wrote the following and it applies here.
Probably in some measure to us all (except for you and I, of
course...GRIN)...this was written some time ago and is a bit hard to read
because of the styles of the times (run on sentenances) but I think you
might enjoy it.

"There is, indeed, a more mitigated scepticism or academical philosophy,
which may be both durable and useful, and which may, in part, be the
result
of this Pyrrhonism, or excessive scepticism, when its undistinguished
doubts
are, in some measure, corrected by common sense and reflection. The
greater
part of mankind are naturally apt to be affirmative and dogmatical in
their
opinions; and while they see objects only on one side, and have no idea of
any counter-poising argument, they throw themselves precipitately into the
principles, to which they are inclined; nor have they any indulgence for
those who entertain opposite sentiments. To hesitate or balance perplexes
their understanding, checks their passion, and suspends their action. They
are, therefore, impatient till they escape from a state, which to them is
so
uneasy: and they think, that they could never remove themselves far enough
from it, by the violence of their affirmations and obstinacy of their
belief. But could such dogmatical reasoners become sensible of the strange
infirmities of human understanding, even in its most perfect state, and
when
most accurate and cautious in its determinations; such a reflection would
naturally inspire them with more modesty and reserve, and diminish their
fond opinion of themselves, and their prejudice against antagonists. The
illiterate may reflect on the disposition of the learned, who, amidst all
the advantages of study and reflection, are commonly still diffident in
their determinations: and if any of the learned be inclined, from their
natural temper, to haughtiness and obstinacy, a small tincture of
Pyrrhonism
might abate their pride, by showing them, that the few advantages, which
they have attained over their fellows, are but inconsiderable, if compared
with the universal perplexity and confusion, which is inherent in human
nature. In general, there is a degree of doubt, and caution, and modesty,
which, in all kinds of scrutiny and decision, ought for ever to accompany
a
just reasoner."

?

Wow. Yes, indeed.

Maybe now I am finally old enough to be humble and to realize my
limitations. I still just want the truth and still think that science
is the best way to find it.

Thank you.

--Mike Jr.

Hey Mike if you liked Humes writing above you will love the following
excerpt from Antoine Lavoisier's (known as the father of modern chemistry)
preface to "elements of Chemistry":

When we begin the study of any science, we are in a situation, respecting
that science, similar to that of children; and the course by which we have
to advance is precisely the same which Nature follows in the formation of
their ideas. In a child, the idea is merely an effect produced by a
sensation; and, in the same manner, in commencing the study of a physical
science, we ought to form no idea but what is a necessary consequence, and
immediate effect, of an experiment or observation. Besides, he that enters
upon the career of science, is in a less advantageous situation than a child
who is acquiring his first ideas. To the child, Nature gives various means
of rectifying any mistakes he may commit respecting the salutary or hurtful
qualities of the objects which surround him. On every occasion his judgments
are corrected by experience; want and pain are the necessary consequences
arising from false judgment; gratification and pleasure are produced by
judging aright. Under such masters, we cannot fail to become well informed;
and we soon learn to reason justly, when want and pain are the necessary
consequences of a contrary conduct.

In the study and practice of the sciences it is quite different; the false
judgments we form neither affect our existence nor our welfare; and we are
not forced by any physical necessity to correct them. Imagination, on the
contrary, which is ever wandering beyond the bounds of truth, joined to
self-love and that self-confidence we are so apt to indulge, prompt us to
draw conclusions which are not immediately derived from facts; so that we
become in some measure interested in deceiving ourselves. Hence it is by no
means to be wondered, that, in the science of physics in general, men have
often made suppositions, instead of forming conclusions. These suppositions,
handed down from one age to another, acquire additional weight from the
authorities by which they are supported, till at last they are received,
even by men of genius, as fundamental truths.

The only method of preventing such errors from taking place, and of
correcting them when formed, is to restrain and simplify our reasoning as
much as possible. This depends entirely upon ourselves, and the neglect of
it is the only source of our mistakes. We must trust to nothing but facts:
These are presented to us by Nature, and cannot deceive. We ought, in every
instance, to submit our reasoning to the test of experiment, and never to
search for truth but by the natural road of experiment and observation. Thus
mathematicians obtain the solution of a problem by the mere arrangement of
data, and by reducing their reasoning to such simple steps, to conclusions
so very obvious, as never to lose sight of the evidence which guides them.

On Feb 27, 2:06*pm, Mike Jr wrote:
On Feb 27, 1:25*pm, "David Staup" wrote:



"Mike Jr" wrote in message

....
On Feb 27, 10:26 am, "David Staup" wrote:

"Mike Jr" wrote in message

....

"Q1. Is it legitimate to use CRU TS 2.0 to 'detect anthropogenic
climate change' (IPCC language)?

A1. No. CRU TS 2.0 is specifically not designed for climate change
detection or attribution in the classic IPCC sense. The classic IPCC
detection issue deals with the distinctly anthropogenic climate
changes we are already experiencing. Therefore it is necessary, for
IPCC detection to work, to remove all influences of urban development
or land use change on the station data....If you want to examine the
detection of anthropogenic climate change, we recommend that you use
the Jones temperature data-set. This is on a coarser (5 degree) grid,
but it is optimised for the reliable detection of anthropogenic
trends.

6. The implication is that the Jones data has been adjusted "for the
reliable detection of anthropogenic trends." Readers are referred to
some academic papers for further explanation. The first is Brohan et
al. (2005). This paper does not explain how the data are adjusted,
instead it focuses on defending the claim that the potential biases
are very small. Two references are cited in support of this point. One
is by US scientist Thomas Peterson, which refers to the contiguous US
only. Another is by David Parker of the Hadley Centre, whose argument
relied on an apparent similarity between trends on windy and calm
nights. No references to papers critical of Parker's methods are
cited. Section 2.3.3 of Brohan et al. states that to properly adjust
the data would require a global comparison of urban versus rural
records, but classifying records in this way is not possible since "no
such complete meta-data are available" (p. 11), so the authors instead
impose the assumption that the bias is no larger than 0.006 degrees
per century. This assumption later appears in the 2007 IPCC Summary
for Policymakers as a research finding (see paragraph 18 below).

7. Brohan et al. refer to a 2003 paper in Journal of Climate by Jones
and Moberg, explaining the CRUTEM version 2 data product. This paper
also has little information about the data adjustments. Reference is
made to combining multiple site records into a single series, but not
to removing non-climatic contamination. Moreover, the article points
out (page 208) that it is difficult to say what homogeneity
adjustments have been applied since the original data sources do not
always include this information.

8. The other reference on the website is to a 1999 Reviews of
Geophysics paper by Jones, New, Parker et. al. This paper emphasizes
that non-climatic influences (therein referred to as
"inhomogeneities") must be corrected (Section 2, p. 37) for the data
to be useful for climatic research. The part of the paper that
provides information on the adjustments is Section 2.1, consisting of
only 3 paragraphs, none of which explains the CRU procedures. The only
explanatory statement is (page 174):

"All 2000+ station time series used have been assessed for homogeneity
by subjective interstation comparisons performed on a local basis.
Many stations were adjusted and some omitted because of anomalous
warming trends and/or numerous nonclimatic jumps (complete details are
given by Jones et al. [1985, 1986c])."

9. Jones et al. [1985, 1986c] are technical reports that were
submitted to the US Department of Energy, but they only cover data
sets ending in the early 1980s, whereas the data under dispute herein
is the post-1979 interval. Even if the adjustments were adequate in
the pre-1980 interval it is likely impossible to have estimated
appropriate empirical adjustments in the early 1980s for changes in
socioeconomic patterns that did not occur until the 1990s.

10. In sum, the CRU cautions that unadjusted temperature data is
inappropriate for the IPCC's purpose, and for detection and
attribution analysis more generally. The CRU refers users instead to
the CRUTEM products. Yet the accompanying documentation does not
appear to explain the adjustments made to make the data products
reliable for such usage.

11. These references also provide tables of sources for the CRUTEM
input data. It can be inferred from the tables that a substantial
portion of the raw data are from the Global Historical Climatology
Network (GHCN) maintained by NOAA. These data are also used as inputs
for the NASA and NOAA global temperature series. Hence the three
global climate data series are not entirely independent. However the
extent of overlap cannot be determined without knowing exactly which
GHCN series are used for the CRU data set, which was one of the points
subject to Freedom of Information requests in 2009. In addition,
without provision of the non-GHCN source data, and a clear description
of the adjustments applied to all input data, it is likely impossible
to determine the overall independence between the CRU, GISS and NOAA
series.

11. I have spent several years implementing statistical models to test
the claim that the adjustments to CRU data are adequate. I have argued
that an indication of inadequate adjustments would be a significant
correlation between the spatial pattern of warming trends in climate
data and the spatial pattern of industrialization/socioeconomic
development. My 2004 paper in Climate Research, coauthored with
Patrick J. Michaels, showed that such correlations are large and
statistically significant, implying that the adjustments are likely
inadequate. Our follow-up paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research
in 2007 re-established these results on a new and larger global data
base. Meanwhile in 2004 and 2006 a team of Dutch meteorologists (de
Laat and Maurellis) also published research showing that gridded
climate data sets appear to be contaminated by effects of
industrialization. They used different methodologies, and we worked
independently."

Memorandum submitted by Professor Ross McKitrick (CRU 31) "

--Mike Jr.

The truth will out.

well eventually the truth will out as you say but don't expect this to
effect Chrissy or Sammy's very well considered (grin and snicker)
opinions.
they couldn't recognize truth if they tripped over it.

Deeply held beliefs die hard. *All I ask of my friends is that they
tell me the truth.

--Mike Jr.

Mike a wise man (David Hume) once wrote the following and it applies here.
Probably in some measure to us all (except for you and I, of
course...GRIN)...this was written some time ago and is a bit hard to read
because of the styles of the times (run on sentenances) but I think you
might enjoy it.

"There is, indeed, a more mitigated scepticism or academical philosophy,
which may be both durable and useful, and which may, in part, be the result
of this Pyrrhonism, or excessive scepticism, when its undistinguished doubts
are, in some measure, corrected by common sense and reflection. The greater
part of mankind are naturally apt to be affirmative and dogmatical in their
opinions; and while they see objects only on one side, and have no idea of
any counter-poising argument, they throw themselves precipitately into the
principles, to which they are inclined; nor have they any indulgence for
those who entertain opposite sentiments. To hesitate or balance perplexes
their understanding, checks their passion, and suspends their action. They
are, therefore, impatient till they escape from a state, which to them is so
uneasy: and they think, that they could never remove themselves far enough
from it, by the violence of their affirmations and obstinacy of their
belief. But could such dogmatical reasoners become sensible of the strange
infirmities of human understanding, even in its most perfect state, and when
most accurate and cautious in its determinations; such a reflection would
naturally inspire them with more modesty and reserve, and diminish their
fond opinion of themselves, and their prejudice against antagonists. The
illiterate may reflect on the disposition of the learned, who, amidst all
the advantages of study and reflection, are commonly still diffident in
their determinations: and if any of the learned be inclined, from their
natural temper, to haughtiness and obstinacy, a small tincture of Pyrrhonism
might abate their pride, by showing them, that the few advantages, which
they have attained over their fellows, are but inconsiderable, if compared
with the universal perplexity and confusion, which is inherent in human
nature. In general, there is a degree of doubt, and caution, and modesty,
which, in all kinds of scrutiny and decision, ought for ever to accompany a
just reasoner."

?

Wow. *Yes, indeed.

Maybe now I am finally old enough to be humble and to realize my
limitations. *I still just want the truth and still think that science
is the best way to find it.

Thank you.

--Mike Jr.

Just don't mistake climate "science" as real science and you'll be
fine.