cc: p.jones@uea.ac.uk date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:24:58 -0600 (MDT) from: wigley@ucar.edu subject: Re: Data Sets to: "Paul Nevins" Paul, I'm copying this to my colleague Phil Jones who is more up to date on these issues. For the land temperature data, every effort has been made to use data that are either rural and/or where the urbanization effect has been removed as well as possible by statistical means. There are 3 groups that have done this independently (CRU, NOAA and GISS), and they end up with essentially the same results. There are many other variables that are consistent with warming -- glaciers melting, sea ice disappearing in the Arctic, etc. The latest word on this is in the observations chapter of the IPCC 4th assessment report (AR4), which can be viewed/downloaded from the IPCC web site. Furthermore, the oceans have warmed at a rate consistent with the land. There is no urban effect there. Also, oceans have warmed at depth, not just at the surface, increasing ocean heat content at a rate that agrees with expectations from climate models. The troposphere has also warmed -- although the amount depends on whose data one uses. This is covered in the IPCC report, and also in the CCSP1.1 report. Atmospheric moisture content has also increased by an amount similar to that predicted by climate models. These changes are not only consistent with each other at the global-mean level, the patterns of change agree with expectations from climate models. These aspects are covered the the IPCC AR4 detection and attribution chapter. THh evidence for substantial global warming, of about 0.7C, is truly overwhelming. You say "there is so much deliberate distortion for political gain and so much soft money riding on the issue". Certainly, none of the scientists I work with or know have any political axes to grind. For me, I don't rely on soft money, so that is not an issue. To think that good scientists would need to bias their results to get funding strikes me as ludicrous. There are some cases where scientists (in medical science) have done this, been found out, and destroyed their careers. Science is a mix of competitive and collaborative endeavours, with many many checks and balances. Any attempt to "fake" or distort results would soon be exposed. Please check out the IPCC AR4 Working Group 1 report. Tom. ++++++++++++++++++++++ > Dear Dr. Wigley > > For a number of years I have thought that the urban heat island effect > had been well understood and accounted for. I thought that because of > your clear explanation of how it was done. It now appears that in the > United States, at the very least, this is not the case. Data used in a > recent paper, (Peterson and Wang I believe were the authors) that > claimed to show that urban heat Island is not a significant part of the > warming signal in fact showed just the opposite. > > I know that this is very recent and McIntyre is not necessarily correct > but, to me it looks like we are back to Richard Balling's claim from 20 > years ago that if you eliminate the urban effect the entire warming > signal vanishes in North America. Since my friends working at the south > pole have shown there is no warming there, and these are perhaps our two > most reliable surface data sets the phenomena isn't looking very global > at the moment. > > I only mention all this to you because you seem to me to have pretty > solid integrity and frankly there is so much deliberate distortion for > political gain and so much soft money riding on the issue that I am > doubting the reliability of almost everything. Climate is not my field, > but teaching scientific method is, and I need something to hang my hat > on when students ask me questions about current issues. Right now I > haven't got that and I suspect that you are also troubled. The entire > issue is starting to remind me of Eugenics research in Germany in the > 30s. > > What do we know that's really solid here? I don't expect a long answer > here, if you can give me a steer to someplace you think doesn't cherry > pick it's data I would appreciate it. > > Paul Nevins >