cc: trenbert@ucar.edu, "Thomas C Peterson" <Thomas.C.Peterson@noaa.gov>, "Parker, David (Met Office)" <david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk>
date: Thu May 26 09:13:41 2005
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Re: FW: World's First Global Thermometer 
to: Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@comcast.net>

    Mike,
         Thanks for emailing this. Not seen it. The original is junk science at its best ! It
   seems
    that they have little idea of the literature. I recall reviewing a paper on global
   temperatures
    in the mid-1980s, where a group at a US University (don't recall which) who just took the
    NCAR dataset and averaged all the surafce temps together. No anomalies, no allowance for
    coverage, no SSTs. Claimed there were massive jumps at certain times of several degrees !
    This seems more of the same sort of awful science.
         HadCRU, NCDC and GISS all get figures out within a few weeks of the end of the month
    and all agree. A paper in submission to GRL saying this - I know it's all been said
   before.
        My main reason for replying though is that soon  (hopefully) you'll be able to point
   out
    that satellites too show warming. Look out for the CCSP report on vertical temperature
    trends when it's available for open review sometime from late August.
        Also the hockey stick has been reproduced by Eugene Wahl and Caspar Amman
    (Alfred Uni and NCAR) and they go on to reproduce what McIntyre/McKitrick got wrong.
    They have two papers in submission and there are at least 3 others showing much the same.
    Ch 6 is likely to conclude much the same as the TAR wrt the last 1000 years. It also seems
    that borehole evidence has been reconciled.
        I reckon you'll have at lot more articles like this to respond to in the coming
   months,
    but a lot more material to work with.  IPCC Chapters will be available for review from
   September.
    Cheers
    Phil
   At 19:31 25/05/2005, you wrote:

     Hi Phil--I hope I got the response right--and thought you might be interested in the
     original article, if you have not already seen it.
     Mike
     Subject: Re: World's First Global Thermometer
     Hi Jane--Well, JunkScience.com is just that--junk science. Certainly, he identifies a
     number of the challenges
     First, the scientific results are actually looking to estimate the "change' in global
     average surface temeprature and not its value, per se--he is right that a global average
     temperature is an artifact. Becasue most of the stations are likely in the Northern
     Hemisphere, it is likely that the summer month average temeprature he calculates will be
     greater than the winter average temperature--for the change in value, however, one needs
     to get the departure of the June temperature from the average June temperature,
     etc.--just the kind of seasonal adjustment done for the economic and job indicators (and
     that can take a good bit of time to work out accurately). Near as I can tell from his
     writeup, this is neglected even though it will surely be a much larger cycling than the
     amount of change we are looking for. In addition, each year is distinct, and so there
     will be variations from year-to-year, and not comparing to a long-term, carefully
     checked average is essential.
     To get at a valid estimate of the average of the local changes in surface temperature
     around the Earth, great care has to be taken to make sure one has good and
     self-consistent baseline temperatures to work with that are not contaminated by station
     moves, changes in instruments and measuring technique, development around stations, and
     many other factors that this JunkScience effort calls "statistical mysteries"--well,
     maybe they are mysteries to the writer, but they are necessary and why experts work so
     hard at it. In economics, the equivalent type of adjustment is, for example, adjustments
     across brands and models of cars or gasoline, etc. , and there are all sorts of other
     adjustments that it often takes them months to make sure they have right. This is all
     really necessary to be doing to get a reliable picture from the first estimate.
     Then, there is the issue of coverage--on land going from an irregular array of stations
     to a useful measure (so combine, carefully accounting for location and area
     represented--more "statistical mysteries" roughly equivalent to accounting in the
     inflation index for how much of each thing a person buys).  There are, for example, a
     great many more stations in Europe than in Africa, so one does have to be careful in
     averaging, etc.  Since the ocean covers about 70% of the Earth's surface, its changes do
     have to be included, and this has to also be done carefully using the right type of
     measurement to get an equivalently representative and consistent indication of
     temperature (and because ocean measurements come via different techniques, one has to be
     especially careful). Satellite estimates of surface temeprature, which are very good in
     a relative sense (one value compared to anohter) can be used to help interpolate between
     surface measurements that are more accurately done in a particular location, but an
     evaluation needs to be done about how they compare with what one might get elsewhere.
     So, what JunkScience has is a number that comes out in real-time--well, congratulations,
     but it is roughly equivalent on the stock market to having the average of the prices of
     all the stocks that trade any given day without accounting for how many shares of which
     stock traded that day, whether any splits occurred, and so on--this is just why there
     are normalized stock averages that are carefully controlled (those 'statistical
     mysteries").
     Mike

          World's First Global Thermometer
          Friday, May 20, 2005
          By Steven Milloy
          As the Northern Hemisphere enters the summer season and natural global warming
          occurs, its a good time to consider the concept of global temperature perhaps the
          most talked about, but least understood, component of the global warming
          controversy.
          Since 1988 when National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) researcher
          James Hansen launched global warming alarmism with his congressional testimony that
          manmade emissions of greenhouse gases were warming the Earths atmosphere, global
          warming has been a hot topic. The controversy only heightened with the advent of the
          so-called hockey stick graph that purports to show a dramatic rise in global
          temperature during the 20th century.
          At JunkScience.com, were trying to shed light on the problem of relying on global
          temperature as an indicator of global warming by developing and displaying the
          worlds first (almost) real-time global thermometer.
          We gather temperature readings from about 1,000 surface-based temperature stations
          around the globe, calculating an average temperature, which we call the global mean
          temperature (GMT).
          We use raw temperature data that isnt statistically massaged to account for
          seasonal variation or for the urban heat island effect the phenomenon caused by the
          heat-retaining properties of concrete and asphalt in urban areas that is known to
          artificially increase local temperatures. We display the current GMT and maintain
          old GMTs to track weekly, monthly and, eventually, annual trends.
          From what we can tell, our data track pretty well with the temperature estimates
          published by other climate researchers, which are available only weeks to months
          after the data are collected.
          At the time of this column, the GMT according to our calculations is roughly 62
          degrees Fahrenheit. So what does that mean exactly?
          Were not really sure. First, global temperature is a contrived concept. There is no
          magical point in the Earths atmosphere to place a thermometer and take the planets
          temperature. Moreover, if you live in a polar or tropical region (or almost anywhere
          for that matter), a GMT of 62 degrees F is patently meaningless what matters is
          whats going on outside where you are.
          Our GMT is based on surface records. But if you look at a map of weather stations
          around the globe, youll readily see the built-in bias of temperature readings from
          surface-based weather stations.
          The overwhelming majority of surface-based weather stations are land-based
          relatively few temperature readings come from ocean-based facilities, resulting in a
          major upward bias in available temperature data since about 75 percent of the
          Earths surface is water.
          An additional bias arises from the fact that there is more land mass and, therefore,
          more surface temperature stations in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern
          Hemisphere.
          Theres an even further bias introduced by the tendency of land-based weather
          stations to be located in more heavily populated areas, which are subject to the
          urban heat island effect. Relatively speaking, not many temperature readings come
          from the wilds of northern and central Asia or eastern Africa, for example.
          There are alternatives to the JunkScience.com-calculated GMT none, however, are
          available in real-time.
          The National Climactic Data Center collects temperature data from about 3,000
          surface-based weather stations. But researchers often try to statistically adjust
          these data to account for the urban heat island effect, which produces results that
          are more statistical mysteries than true averages of global surface temperature
          readings.
          Other researchers calculate GMTs from data collected by satellites and weather
          balloons. These data measure atmospheric temperatures from all around the Earth and
          dont suffer from the same biases as the surface temperature data. Its important to
          note that without the upward bias inherent to the surface temperature data, the
          satellite/balloon temperature measurements show no significant increase since data
          collection began 30 years ago.
          Global warming alarmism is largely based on the notion that global temperatures have
          increased since the 19th century industrial revolution due to manmade emissions of
          greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide. The infamous hockey stick graph tries to
          dramatize the alleged increase in temperature by going back 1,000 years.
          But the pre-20th century GMTs in the hockey stick graph for the most part dont come
          from thermometer readings. Instead they are guesstimates of GMTS based on
          geographically and temporally scattered data scavenged from tree rings, ice cores
          and other dubious proxies for thermometers.
          Whether calculated in real-time or two months after-the-fact, surface-based
          calculations of GMT are inherently and impossibly biased. In this light, the hockey
          sticks GMTs over the last 1,000 years are near worthless yet it is this very data
          that are being used to drive global warming hysteria.
          We hope that the JunkScience.com global thermometer will help demystify the flawed
          science that has led to the present state of climate clamoring. Remember, just 30
          years ago, early climate alarmists were actually fretting about global cooling.
          Its shocking that our government may commit us to potentially harmful energy and
          policies like the international global warming treaty known as the Kyoto Protocol or
          the legislation introduced in the U.S. Senate by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen.
          Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., based on such an elusive, if not meaningless, concept as
          global temperature.
          Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRwatch.com, is adjunct scholar at the
          Competitive Enterprise Institute, and is the author of Junk Science Judo:
          Self-defense Against Health Scares and Scams (Cato Institute, 2001).

   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
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
