Wang et al and Jones et al (1990) Seems to be Fabricated Data.

Another dent on the Anthropogenic Global Warming claim has come to my attention.

Wang et al., Urban heat islands in China (GRL 1990)
Jones et al., Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land (Nature 1990)
seem to be based on fabricated data such as data from China that were claimed to come from the same stations even though the location of most stations was changing many times by as much as dozens of miles (which is, of course, a huge problem for any analysis of the urbanization effects).

The paper by Jones et al. (1990) is important because it is used by IPCC AR4 to resolve an apparent contradiction: the paper argues that the urbanization effects are 10 times smaller than needed to explain the observed 20th century warming trend. Douglas Keenan has used some observations of Steve McIntyre (climateaudit.org) and himself and filed a formal complaint of research fraud regarding this work:

motls.blogspot.com...

Here is some of the original work by Douglas J. Keenan showing the data is fabricated.

www.informath.org...

www.informath.org...

I think you've found a friend in Lubis Motl, birds of a feather and all that. Did you know that him and Lindzen are buddies? I think Motl's leaving academia though.

Yeah, good to be able to ensure data is correct, it actually makes the data for that region more consistent with the GCMs. Good, eh?

However, it makes absolutely no dent in the claim of AGW, sorry. To do that, you would need to show that human activity is having a non-significant effect on climate. I doubt a bit of cooked data from China will do that.

[edit on 10-8-2007 by melatonin]

LOL, so the fact that Jones and Wang tried to hide the fact that the stations used to record temperatures were moved to areas which would be warmer has no effect on the AGW claim?....

[edit on 10-8-2007 by Muaddib]

What about the fact that "all the leading climate models" were wrong when they forecasted that more warming would produce positive feedback increasing the amount of cirrus cloud, yet what we are observing is a negative feedback...the amount of cirrus clouds decrease with more warming....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I guess that doesn't put a dent on the AGW claims either huh?....

Originally posted by melatonin
I think you've found a friend in Lubis Motl, birds of a feather and all that. Did you know that him and Lindzen are buddies? I think Motl's leaving academia though.

Well thank you, that's much better than being a friend and associate of Mann, Jones, and Wang et al. All three known liars who have tried to bury facts and disinform people...

[edit on 10-8-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Well thank you, that's much better than being a friend and associate of Mann, Jones, and Wang et al. All three known liars who have tried to bury facts and disinform people...

Heheh, I guess you don't know Motl that well...

I'll answer the cirrus cloud stuff in t'other thread when I get round to it, the earlier post I'll do here.

Why should it affect the claim that human activity is having a significant effect on climate?

Do you think that because Wang may have cooked data, that human activity is now not important?

That's quite a claim. By what mechanism would a Wang deception affect the physical properties of GHGs, and further reduce the effect of black carbon and destruction of important environments?

He's quite a guy...

You got Mann lying and cooking up data trying to hide the end of the RWP, the MWP and the LIA and claim alongside some others, which includes Jones and Wang, and now we find that Jones and Wang booth also cooked data in favor of AGW, and this does not put a dent on the AGW claim.....

BTW, no need to anwser anything melatonin, I know you are going to try to cook up data and spread disinformation...

Originally posted by Muaddib
You got Mann lying and cooking up data trying to hide the end of the RWP, the MWP and the LIA and claim alongside some others, which includes Jones and Wang, and now we find that Jones and Wang booth also cooked data in favor of AGW, and this does not put a dent on the AGW claim.....

Now, you're starting to push it really. For one, Mann did not lie or cook up data. As you well know by now, his reconstructions have been validated by the NAS. Moreover, his work is entirely consistent with several multi-proxy reconstructions. Which means that all those research groups have, in your mind, covered up the MWP and LIA.

Secondly, Jones is not suggested to have been involved in cooking the data. In fact, Keenan accepts that he would have been very unlikely to have been involved, and that in his 2001 article, he actually contradicted Wang's claims.

So, the issue with Jones is that he likely knew in 2001 that Wang's data was questionable. Thus, he should really have been more vocal about it.

I think, therefore, that the disinformation is all yours. (i) Mann's work is valid; (ii) Jones is very unlikely to have cooked the data, or even have known about when the 1990 paper was published.

But, hey, don't let the facts get in the way of the BS.

I'm off for a kip.

cheers.

[edit on 10-8-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Muaddib
You got Mann lying and cooking up data trying to hide the end of the RWP, the MWP and the LIA and claim alongside some others, which includes Jones and Wang, and now we find that Jones and Wang booth also cooked data in favor of AGW, and this does not put a dent on the AGW claim.....

And we've got Muaddib lying about research carried out by people he hasn't even met!

(Yes, it is a lie, because you cannot possibly know that what you say is true. At best it's opinion, but you don't specify it as such; stating it as fact makes it a lie ...)

You really can't get this can you? Mann studied the data. He produced a chart based on what his study of the data showed. That's it. It may have been flawed - even the IPCC admit that! But the fact that chart didn't show what you think it should have shown is not itself a reason to dismiss it.

Originally posted by Muaddib

I guess that doesn't put a dent on the AGW claims either huh?....

Er, no ....... why should it? AGW theory is not based on model prediction. All it might do is mean the future projections are wrong (and I think they're wrong for other reasons anyway). But the theory itself is unaffected by such things.

[edit on 11-8-2007 by Essan]

Originally posted by melatonin

Now, you're starting to push it really. For one, Mann did not lie or cook up data. As you well know by now, his reconstructions have been validated by the NAS.

Me pushing it?... naa, i am not the one still trying to give credit to Mann et al even though they are discredited...

There are dozens of research data from all over the globe which contradicts the claims made by Mann et al, and people like yourself...but everytime you and some others want to claim that data is wrong, and just the data from Mann et al is right...yet time and again more information comes along showing such data was not only flawed, but rigged trying to hide facts about past climate changes.

Originally posted by melatonin

But, hey, don't let the facts get in the way of the BS.

I am not the one who does that, that's your department.

Originally posted by Essan

And we've got Muaddib lying about research carried out by people he hasn't even met!

(Yes, it is a lie, because you cannot possibly know that what you say is true. At best it's opinion, but you don't specify it as such; stating it as fact makes it a lie ...)

Heh?... i have recieved warning tags in the past for saying people are lying...let's see if you get a warning for claiming that i am lying now.

Anyways, why do i need to "meet" people who have presented research to the world to know whether or not they have been lying?... more so when those same people, such as Mann, have been trying to defend the fact that his data is/was flawed, and his data was completely different from what the geological record has shown us about the RWP, the MWP and the LIA?....

No, that's a red herring on your part... i could very well say you are lying about my intentions and about my statements "because you have never met me"...

You don't have to "meet" a person to know whether the statements they have made are true or not, and just by "meeting a person" you wouldn't know whether or not they are lying.

Statements and actions are what tells you whether a person is lying, not "meeting a person"...

Originally posted by Essan
You really can't get this can you? Mann studied the data. He produced a chart based on what his study of the data showed. That's it. It may have been flawed - even the IPCC admit that! But the fact that chart didn't show what you think it should have shown is not itself a reason to dismiss it.

And you really can't get it can you?... Mann alongside some others have been cooking up data and research to claim that the RWP, the MWP and the LIA were not global events, and that the RWP or the MWP were not warmer than it is today, when dozens of other research from around the world has proven the contrary to their claims...yet, this is not reason to dismiss Mann et al research?....

Originally posted by Essan
Er, no ....... why should it? AGW theory is not based on model prediction. All it might do is mean the future projections are wrong (and I think they're wrong for other reasons anyway). But the theory itself is unaffected by such things.

The whole concept that CO2 is going to cause "runaway global warming" is based on Global Climate Models predicting this will happen because of "CO2." And the claim that CO2 causes a lot of warming is only backed by the GCMs, the geological record does not corroborate the claim that CO2 causes the warming the AGW crowd claim it does.
Yet you want to claim that finding that the GCMs are flawed, and knowing that the claims by the AGW crowd are wrong, or were even rigged/cooked up, yet this does not affect the AGW claim?....


[edit on 15-8-2007 by Muaddib]

As I've pointed out on other forums, humans have these tendency (strange and difficult to understand though it may be) of making mistakes. Just because a human makes a mistake or gets something wrong does not mean that he has deliberated mislead, lied or committed fraud.

I accept that those who are not human and not subject to such illogical frailties may find this a difficult concept to understand.

The point being that you cannot accuse a person of lying about something unless you have clear evidence that, at the time, he knew without doubt that what he said/wrote was not true.

Now, I accused you of lying as an example of this - I don't actually know if you were lying. You may have proof. But where is it?

And the reason I mentioned you not having met Mann is simply because if you had done, you might know that he had lied - ie from a private conversion

The whole concept that CO2 is going to cause "runaway global warming" is based on Global Climate Models predicting this will happen because of "CO2." And the claim that CO2 causes a lot of warming is only backed by the GCMs

My mistake. I didn't realise that Arrhenius based his calculations on GCMs

I also mistakenly thought that belief in global warming is partly based on temperature records which, er, show global warming to be happening.

[edit on 15-8-2007 by Essan]