date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 12:22:10 -0700
from: "Wayne P. Kraus" <KrausWP@comcast.net>
subject: RE: IPCC Statements
to: "'Phil Jones'" <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>

   Phil:


   Thanks for your reply. I will review your comments carefully. Just based on the geological
   analog I would expect that if we had a perfect "yardstick" to measure long-term global
   temperature trends we should expect to see that over the past 10,000 or 15,000 years the
   "global" temperature should be increasing. So I infer that the crux of the man-made global
   warming theory is that the rate of increase in the 20^th century is too steep to be caused
   by the natural solar cycle variations. So you and the IPCC are alarmed by a change of slope
   in the 20^th century "global" temperature versus time curve. The leap to man-made GHG in
   the 20^th century as the cause is still a major leap of faith without verifiable proof that
   the trace of CO2 among the GHGs is what is driving climate. The enormous financial cost to
   adopt the IPCC plan to remove atmospheric CO2 requires more proof than a temperature
   correlation. What if the change of slope is driven by the major GHG, water vapor, would the
   IPCC demand that we dehydrate the earth?


   How have you confirmed that the 20^th century change in slope of the "global" temperature
   versus time plot is not simply an artifact of the urban island effect associated with the
   terrestrial temperature stations? The NCAR inventory of the 460 USHCN stations to date
   shows that 70% of the instruments inventoried show pronounced urban island elevated bias.
   This alone could easily account for a 20^th century change of slope with timing in perfect
   harmony with the flight to suburbia following WW II. At this time I cannot really conclude
   that until I look at the data from the rest of the world, a collection that has to include
   data from the atmosphere over the oceans.


   The references I have found from publications so far indicate this is a rather sporadic
   collection of voluntary reports from merchant shipping isolated to the well traveled
   shipping lanes. At this time I don't know how far back this temperature record goes or what
   fraction of the oceanic area of the globe has data coverage. With the oceans covering 70%
   of the globe, I suspect this is a major statistical hurdle to deal with when averaging to
   obtain a single number "global" average temperature.


   Next the one map of southern hemisphere historical reporting stations I have seen to date,
   covering a global area far more vast than the US, appears to be very sparse in comparison
   to the 1221 USHCN instruments covering just the US. I expect this disparity in the number
   of reporting stations will be another major statistical hurdle when averaging to find a
   single number "global" temperature.


   I am also concerned how the diurnal and seasonal temperature change at any historical
   temperature recording station is filtered out of this statistical analysis. As you know the
   diurnal/seasonal swings in temperature can exceed 100C. That data scatter could easily
   swamp the trend line of about 2C over a period of time exceeding 10,000 years. If we
   plotted the entire collection of raw data on a daily basis versus the last 150 years I
   would expect to see something like the hole in a target created by a shotgun blast. Have
   you looked at this kind of presentation?


   All things considered I expect to find the analysis of this collection of data to be a
   major statistical challenge. Perhaps you can comment on these concerns?


   Wayne Kraus

   Littleton, Colorado

   ___________________________________________________________________________________________

   From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
   Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 10:34 AM
   To: Wayne P. Kraus
   Subject: RE: IPCC Statements


    Wayne,
       Off home now. It is a case of reading the IPCC Report, and understanding
    about radiative forcing. Read Ch 2 of the IPCC Report.
       We know why Ice Ages occur - Milankovitch forcing.  The timescales are
    know. There is no dispute about them at all. Milanovitch forcing doesn't
    have any effect on 30-year timescales.
        Solar forcing hasn't changed in the last 50 years. We've had more volcanoes
    in the last 40 years than since the early-20th century, so we should be cooling.
    We are warming - and at a faster rate than ever before.
         Also read Chapter 9.
    Back Monday
    Phil
   At 17:00 08/02/2008, you wrote:

   Phil:

   Thank you for the links to data which you have sent. I will begin to pull in the data and
   review it before attempting an analysis.

   Over my career I have worked with many geologists and I have worked with and mapped lots of
   geological data. That was the reason for my query which you have not answered. Can you give
   me a simple explanation why you and the IPCC conclude 20^th century release of greenhouse
   gases can be the cause of climate change that began thousands of years ago? While this is a
   proxy temperature record, the geological record of multiple cyclical ice ages and
   interglacial melting and thawing over the last 1,000,000 years appears to be an exact
   analog for the glacial melting we are seeing today. I have great difficulty understanding
   that a time series analysis of the recent 150 years of terrestrial temperature data that
   you used to construct the plots provided to the IPCC proves that 20^th century greenhouse
   gases is the cause of this temperature increase. At best I expect my analysis of this data
   will provide a correlation (which I expect will be very weak given the difficulties with
   the data that have already been cited by other scientists). A correlation does not prove
   causation which I know you realize. Whenever, I have been presented with conclusions of
   causation based entirely on correlation I like to relate the following example from my
   personal experiences.

   When I lived and worked in Houston, Texas I bicycled as often as my work load permitted in
   a rural wooded park near my home. After a while I noticed that every time there were heavy
   rains in our area I would encounter poisonous snakes on the bicycle path. The correlation
   was perfect! So I told my friends that I reached the conclusion that the snakes fell from
   the sky with the rain. No one believed me despite the fact that the correlation was
   perfect! As you know a scientists has to look beyond a simple correlation to find cause and
   effect. That seems to be missing from the IPCC findings.

   Please answer the question linking past ice ages that have come and gone to 20^th century
   anthropogenic GHGs.

   Wayne Kraus
   Littleton, Colorado
   ___________________________________________________________________________________________

   From: Phil Jones [[1] mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
   Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 3:57 AM
   To: Wayne P. Kraus
   Cc: susan.solomon@noaa.gov
   Subject: Re: IPCC Statements

    Wayne,
       I've given you starting points about the temperature data in a message recently sent.
    As for this one, I suggest again that you read the IPCC volume from the web site given
    previously. The quotes you have given here are a couple from the many in the SPM
    of the WG1 AR4 2007 Report. In the SPM volume each summary bullet refers to a section in
   the main
    report and/or the Technical Summary where you can find the background
    supporting information.  For example, the first of your quotes refers to Chs 3,4 and 5.
       As I said in the earlier email, IPCC assesses the scientific literature. This
   literature
    has all appeared in peer-reviewed journals.
      I know the IPCC volume is large (996pp) but there is a lot of literature to assess
    from a lot of climatic-related fields.
    Best Regards
    Phil
   At 23:42 07/02/2008, you wrote:
   Professor Phil Jones:

   I have been researching some of your publications. I just ran across this information which
   I assume you have reviewed.
   The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change in its most recent report in 2007 stated:
   'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of
   increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice,
   and rising global average sea level.'
   'Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century
   is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas
   concentrations12. This is an advance since the TAR's conclusion that "most of the observed
   warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas
   concentrations". Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate,
   including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind
   patterns'
   Please explain how you reconcile the fact that the present temperature increase began at
   the end of the last ice age and that the glaciers have been melting for tens of thousands
   of years with the claim that this is being driven by 20^th century production of greenhouse
   gases? How can present release of greenhouse gases be the cause of climate change that
   happened thousands of years ago? This conclusion seems entirely unjustified if only based
   on the actual geologic record of earth history.
   Have you had a peer review on this conclusion with the geological community? This
   conclusion seems completely illogical.

   Please do explain your conclusion!

   Regards,


   Dr. Wayne Kraus, PhD
   Littleton, Colorado
   ___________________________________________________________________________________________

   From: Wayne P. Kraus [ [2]mailto:KrausWP@comcast.net]
   Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 3:52 PM
   To: 'p.jones@uea.ac.uk'
   Subject: Release of IPCC Temperature Data
   Importance: High

   Professor Phil Jones:

   A colleague and I have been researching the temperature data which IPCC has used to suggest
   the theory of man-made global warming. We have been searching for the raw data from all
   historical temperature reporting stations used to construct the IPCC temperature plot. I
   guess this has become known as the hockey stick.

   We would like to do our own analysis of the raw data. We have lots of questions about the
   data you have used. Here are a few of the questions we have.

    1. We have found the list of the 1221 USHCN stations from information posted by NCAR. We
       have noted that urban island effects began to influence the temperature readings during
       the flight to suburbia following WW II. Did you correct USHCN data to account for that
       bias?
    2. Where can we find the raw data from historical temperature instruments covering the
       oceans? The oceans cover more than 70% of the surface of the earth and we expect that
       data to show significantly less variability (data scatter) than terrestrial temperature
       stations?
    3. Where can we find the raw data for all historical temperature data outside the USA
       which you used when calculating your global averagetemperatures for the IPCC plot?
    4. I anticipate the distribution of temperature recording instruments in remote and third
       world nations is more sparse than in western industrial nations. How did you adjust
       your global averagevolumetrically? What I mean is if there are 20 USHCN instruments
       covering the entire state of Kansas and 100 USHCN instruments in the densely populated
       area near New York City, the averaging technique has to remove that kind of bias. How
       did you do this?


   In short, I would be most grateful if you will direct me to an IPCC site where I can
   retrieve the entire raw data collection you used to develop your analysis. I would also
   like to see a comprehensive report on the techniques you used to compute your global
   averagetemperature used in your plot.

   Based on the many comments I have seen regarding your analysis of this recent temperature
   history, I believe this data and those conclusions require greater peer review than they
   have received. I hope you will cooperate in completing the scientific process of peer
   review and verification.

   Best regards,

   Dr. Wayne Kraus, PhD
   Littleton, Colorado

   Prof. Phil Jones
   Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
   School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
   University of East Anglia
   Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
   NR4 7TJ
   UK
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Prof. Phil Jones
   Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
   School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
   University of East Anglia
   Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
   NR4 7TJ
   UK
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

