Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« House to investigate Climategate? | Main | Temperature records tumble »
Thursday
Dec092010

Keenan calling SciTech committee

Doug Keenan has written to the House of Commons SciTech committee again.

Read his letter here.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (18)

I do hope our new friends from sceptic alert read Dougs evidence, I would love to hear how they deal with their own denial, reading that must be just like pulling teeth, as Mike recently opined about his denial.

Dec 9, 2010 at 12:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrosty

Just one comment....
I wouldn't like to be in Jones's shoes if the main stream media get a purchase on this....

Its dynamite...

Dec 9, 2010 at 12:26 PM | Unregistered Commenterconfused

I have never formally 'met' DJK, but saw him at the Climategate beanfeast in London in the summer. He frightened the ... out of me (and most of the panel) - and I was on his side! I'd hate to have him 'prosecuting' a case, as I fear I would have no hiding place. Trevor Davies and Phil Jones should be quaking.

Dec 9, 2010 at 12:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder

Another IPCC AR4 error has been reported. This time on deforestation.

IPCC AR4 states that deforestation is responsible for up to 20 per cent of CO2 emissions.

Now a report by ecologists at Winrock International says a more detailed analysis puts the figure at around 8 per cent, possibly as low as 5%.

Is that the sound of chainsaws I hear?

Dec 9, 2010 at 12:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Re: UHI
I suggest UHI is not limited to concentrated local energy output in the city from cars, home heating, AC and the like. It also arises from reduced transport of heat from surface to atmosphere by evaporation, due the fact that much precipitation in the city is removed through storm drains, rather than soaking into the soil and subsequently evaporating, either spontaneously or via plant transpiration.

Rainfall in London c 1M / year = 1000 kg /m2
Latent heat of vapourisation of water: 2257 KJ/kg
Energy transported by 100% evaporation of rainfall c 2257 MJ / m2 / year
1 year = 365x24x60x60 = c 30 Ms
Rate of energy transport = c 2257 M / 30 M W /m2 = c 70 W / m2

ISTM that, even though urban run-off is not 100%, and rural evaporation plus transpiration is not 100% either, the difference in evaporative cooling might be enough to cause a significant positive temperature effect.

Dec 9, 2010 at 12:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobbo

Keenan is being charitable when he describes Jones 2008 (as far as the point he is making, that is good enough). Look at Warwich Hughes' analysis:

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=204

[Winrock is very much 'in the game'. It is obvious that pre-negotiations- the harmful effects of temperature on the forests should be highlighted (IPCC et al), close to negotiations, the carbon emitted by non-forest sources should become the major chunk of CO2, as 'deforestation' reduces forest stock carbon prices (Winrock), and post-negotiations, the ability of the saved forests to soak up vast quantities of carbon be highlighted (recent NASA press release)]

Right now, all three points are in play. What a joke. :)

Dec 9, 2010 at 1:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

@Mac. WUWT has a recent posting entitled "NASA climate model shows plants slow Global Warming by creating a new negative feedback in response to increased CO2"

Dec 9, 2010 at 1:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterAJC

AJC

The Winrock International study has huge implications. $billions of potential carbon credits and huge windfall profits were being built into projects concerning the protection of world's forests, expecially the Amazon basin. This hugely significant downgrading of CO2 emissions from deforestation is a game changer. It scuppers effectively REDD and similar projects because who will want to invest in trees when there is more money to be made from logging and clearing forests for farming.

Dec 9, 2010 at 2:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac

confused: Why would the main stream media get a purchase on this? That would be uncharacteristic. The only mention will be by James Delingpole and Christopher Booker; but I would like to be proven wrong. This is a devastating letter.

Dec 9, 2010 at 3:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Does the HoC Committee have the ability to respond in accordance with DK's suggestion?

Have any of the co-authors ever been asked whether they saw the raw China data, and if so whether they kept a copy?

If there is no data, then Jones himself cannot disprove the possibility that he was comparing urban and rural chinese takeaway pricelists

Dec 9, 2010 at 4:05 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charley

Any update on what the next step is with the SciTech Committee's review of Russell and Oxburgh?

Dec 9, 2010 at 4:23 PM | Unregistered Commentermpaul

How much does it cost to have a full page in the Times?

That's where this needs to be.

Dec 9, 2010 at 4:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrosty

Here is Nature's opinion on fraud and retractions- a painful remedy. The editorial is from the 4th of November.

The need for quality assurance and the difficulties of doing it are exacerbated when new techniques are rapidly taken up within what is often a highly competitive community. And past episodes have shown the risk that collaborating scientists — especially those who are geographically distant — may fail to check data from other labs for which, as co-authors, they are ultimately responsible.

If we at Nature are alerted to possibly false results by somebody who was not an author of the original paper, we will investigate. This is true even if the allegations are anonymous — some important retractions in the literature have arisen from anonymous whistle-blowing. However, we are well aware of the great damage that can be done to co-authors as a result of such allegations, especially when the claims turn out to be false. Such was the case with a recent e-mail alert widely distributed by a group calling itself Stem Cell Watch (see Nature 467, 1020; 2010) — an action that we deplore.

For our part, we are sensitive to such concerns and will bear in mind the need to protect the interests of authors until our obligation to the community at large becomes clear. But then we will publish a retraction promptly, and link to it prominently from the original papers. We will also list the retraction on our press release if the original paper was itself highlighted to the media.

Too many retractions, a journal may yet recover. Too many retained published and cited papers with evident fraud?

Dec 9, 2010 at 5:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

MPaul

I haven't heard anything yet.

Dec 9, 2010 at 8:25 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

Mr. Keenan is in a perfect situation to pull down the house of cards that is climate research.

He is independent of the system and can not be blackmailed by grants and career promotions that bind science insiders. He clearly has the intellectual chops to dissect the maths and science and will not be dismissed or blustered.

Mr. Keenan - you are on-track and correct in your approach. Do not let your foot off the throat, a few more gurgles and flops and it will all be over. A three-quarter snarling head mount of Wang and Jones will look great in your office.

Dec 9, 2010 at 8:51 PM | Unregistered Commenternvw

Doug Keenan is a true star. He has the same tenacity as Steve Mac he will not let this go and reading his letter shows he has a solid case for Jones to answer.

Dec 10, 2010 at 1:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterDung

Fraud or incompetence?

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." -- Richard P. Feynman

I am more inclined to think that with Jones we have the Peter Principal manifest. Either way, testing for such has not yet been undertaken in a satisfactory manner. Keenan cannot be ignored for he so clearly brings into the light both the inadequecies of the investigations and of the research data.

Dec 10, 2010 at 6:58 AM | Unregistered Commentersimpleseekeraftertruth

The 1990 Jones et al paper studied China, Russia and Australia. All is not well in the Australian portion either. Warwick Hughes has mentioned some of the problems, see various headings in his blog http://www.warwickhughes.com/

In the sense that climate workers need a body that investigates governance and another like a Stock Exchange that covers insider trading, I anticipate much more publicity will arise in US and UK particularly. Thank you Douglas Keenan and others who know who they are.

Dec 10, 2010 at 11:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterGeof Sherington

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>