BREAKING NEWS: Major error found in flagship IPCC WG1 report

The UN IPCC is facing more humiliation tonight after revelations that a "peer reviewed' study relied on in its Working Group 1 report contained "worthless" and fake data.

It's the first time climate skeptics have landed a direct blow via the MSM on the prestigious WG-1 report, which outlines the 'scientific' case for climate change and which was used as the basis for the Summary for Policymakers given to world leaders ahead of Copenhagen. Ironically the fatal stab has come from the warmist-leaning Guardian, based on work by British skeptic Doug Keenan.

In section 3.2 of WG-1, the UN IPCC discounts the influence of Urban Heat Island Effect based on a study by the University of East Anglia's Phil Jones, who gave the first official confirmation in the world that the Climategate emails were genuine.

The IPCC says:

However, the key issue from a climate change standpoint is whether urban-affected temperature records have signifi cantly biased large-scale temporal trends.

Studies that have looked at hemispheric and global scales conclude that any urban-related trend is an order of magnitude smaller than decadal and longer time-scale trends evident in the series (e.g., Jones et al., 1990)

The problem for the IPCC is the story in today's Guardian newspaper, which reveals the 1990 Jones study was based on made-up data that Jones knew was unreliable.

It's the data on this study that Jones later urged his colleagues in the Climategate scandal to delete their emails regarding.

The Guardian reports:

Phil Jones, the beleaguered British climate scientist at the centre of the leaked emails controversy, is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in key temperature data on which some of his work was based.

A Guardian investigation of thousands of emails and documents apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them could not be produced.

Jones and a collaborator have been accused by a climate change sceptic and researcher of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming – a hotly contested issue.

Today the Guardian reveals how Jones withheld the information requested under freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Jones's collaborator, Wei-­Chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had "screwed up"...(etc)

So to sum up, a key finding in Working Group 1, the most prestigious of the IPCC reports, was sourced primarily to a knowingly false study that had nonetheless passed "peer review" through Jones' cozy clique of mates and was published in Nature.

If that one snuck through, how many more "peer reviewed" studies from the Climategate clique are also approvingly quoted in WG-1 and the Summary for Policymakers, but just as flawed because of the corrupt science involved?

I should add that although WG-1 does cite a couple of other studies as well as Jones', that Jones later completed a new study, ("Urbanisation effects in large scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China", Jones et al, 2008) cited at page 108 of Air Con, which found that far from being "inconsequential", true UHI in China was increasing by 0.1C a DECADE, outstripping the claimed effect of global warming at only 0.07C a decade.

In other words, a more honest analysis of UHI shows it is a far bigger influence than the UN IPCC report, based on Jones' false earlier study, showed. It's a fair bet Jones revisted the issue because of his conscience (the false data in the first report had been provided by a Chinese scientist).

So whilst the Guardian's Fred Pearce can take the line that this does not negate the science underpinning the IPCC report, I see it differently. This shows the premium climate scientists in the world producing worthless, error-filled studies that nonetheless passed 'peer review' and were treated as gospel by the IPCC and its WG-1 reviewers.

That's scary. And they want the world to entrust  US$45 trillion of wealth transfer based on their work?

This is not a smoking gun, this is a short fuse ACME explosive kit underneath the UN IPPC with RoadRunner grinning a trademark 'beep beep' as Wyllie K Pachauri goes boom.

UPDATE: IPCC report based on work of Masters students!

 

Comments

[Kapow]

"So to sum up, a key finding in Working Group 1, the most prestigious of the IPCC reports, was sourced primarily to a knowingly false study that had nonetheless passed "peer review" through Jones' cozy clique of mates and was published in Nature."

I do seem to recall that CM mocked me a few weeks ago for suggesting that Jones et al "peer reviewed" each others work. Hmmmmm, the truth shall set you free.

[David White]

"true UHI in China was increasing by 0.1C a DECADE, outstripping the claimed effect of global warming at only 0.7C a decade."

It seems something is not right in this sentence.

[Angus]

It's over.

The AGW hysteria is dead.

Time to move on.

[Ian Wishart]

"true UHI in China was increasing by 0.1C a DECADE, outstripping the claimed effect of global warming at only 0.7C a decade."

Good spotting David. Fixed. 0.07

[PaulM]

Ian,

where did you get 0.07? The IPCC report claimed UHI was only 0.006 degrees per decade. page 244. Or is this a local figure for china?

p.s. Many more IPCC errors and exaggerations on my website.

[Luke]

que CM- "but the IPCC reports are still really good" or perhaps they may only be "O.K" now.

[CM]

>>>I do seem to recall that CM mocked me a few weeks ago for suggesting that Jones et al "peer reviewed" each others work. Hmmmmm, the truth shall set you free.<<<

How is that relevant? I mock people for inventing things that aren't supported by good evidence.

>>>que CM- "but the IPCC reports are still really good" or perhaps they may only be "O.K" now.<<<

Nope, still very good. Still a million times better than Blog Science.

Even Doug Keenan himself admits "None of this means that the conclusion of the IPCC is incorrect." Seems like a rational guy.

In an interview with the Press Association (PA) about The Guardian's article, Phil Jones says he stands by the conclusion of the 1990 paper, not least because it was backed up by other studies, including papers in 2007 and 2008 that used a more detailed Chinese dataset.

Below is a graph comparing the 1990 (Jones et al) and 2007 (Li et al) graphs.

Woe be it for you all to look at two sides of an argument, but here is the UEA response:

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/guardianstatement

The accuracy of the data and results was confirmed in a later paper.

How come the 'fake' data was almost entirely the same as the real data? How do you 'make up' data that is so close?

[CM]

>>>"true UHI in China was increasing by 0.1C a DECADE, outstripping the claimed effect of global warming at only 0.7C a decade."

Good spotting David. Fixed. 0.07<<<

Ian's adjusting his figures. Making 'adjustments'. FRAUD! CONSPIRACY! Please release all your private emails immediately.

[Luke]

"Nope, still very good. "

So what will it take CM, how many more errors and factious references will people need to find before it becomes "O.K"?

[CM]

>>>So what will it take CM, how many more errors and factious references will people need to find before it becomes "O.K"?<<<

I'm waiting for your response to my questions:
How come the 'fake' data was almost entirely the same as the real data? How do you 'make up' data that is so close (actually it's identical)?

I'm not convinced there is much at all to the 'ice loss' issue. In Chapter 1 of Working Group II’s report there is a section on observed changes in the cryosphere. It contains a short table (page 86) of selected observed effects is provided. Included among them is the loss of ice climbs in the Andes, the Alps and Africa. It is in relation to this minor observation that the student dissertation and climbing magazine article are cited by the IPCC. But somehow people are trying to imply that the IPCC references to disappearing ice are based on these two sources. The reality is that the Working Group I report in chapter 4 (pages 356-360) deals with observed changes glaciers in a section densely packed with scientific information, whereas the Working Group II report in which this report is found describes the observed effects on the environment and on human activities due to these recent cryospheric changes. And the loss of ice climbs is a tiny part of those effects. Why is everyone ignoring that? Why would you want to misrepresent the situation, if you care about the science at all?

Don't pretend to care about the science when you really just don't want taxes to go up.

[Mack]

Can anybody be bothered reading what this bloke CM has got to say? I sure as hell can't.

[bk]

"Why is everyone ignoring that?"...Once bitten twice shy.."Why would you want to misrepresent the situation, if you care about the science at all"..CM,why dont you ask Jones,Mann,etc. why they didnt care enough about the science,afterall it was their ineptitude,misrepresention,and blatant disregard for basic scientific methodology that has brought the model(AGW) crashing down around them.

[bk]

oops edit..afterall "it is they that are accused of" ineptitude,"misrepresentation",and blatant disregard for basic scientific methodology..sorry.

[Andrew W]

If the UHI effect had not been correctly adjusted for, someone would have pointed out by now that there was a divergence of the adjusted temperature data between rural and urban weather stations, with the urban stations that were used showing greater warming, no divergence has been found.

[(not so) Silent]

Andrew
You should read Surface stations org.
Half the issue is GISS, Hadcru deleting stations.Creating a grid system.
Why is Hansen ignoring temps where the ice pack is not year round is a question you should look into.
Complete Moron, the issue of Jones and co peer reviewing each others work is disclosed in the climate gate emails where they dicuss who to check the work many times.

[CM]

>>>Can anybody be bothered reading what this bloke CM has got to say? I sure as hell can't.<<<

Yeah it's a good idea to ONLY read stuff that reinforces what you ALREADY know. Otherwise the world becomes too scary doesn't it.

[CM]

>>>"Why is everyone ignoring that?"...Once bitten twice shy.."Why would you want to misrepresent the situation, if you care about the science at all"..CM,why dont you ask Jones,Mann,etc. why they didnt care enough about the science,afterall it was their ineptitude,misrepresention,and blatant disregard for basic scientific methodology that has brought the model(AGW) crashing down around them.<<<

Come on, admit it, you're all graduates of a Masters degree in vague and meaningless accusations and allegations and internet posts which say nothing of substance. Come on, you can tell me.....I can keep a secret!

[CM]

>>>Complete Moron, the issue of Jones and co peer reviewing each others work is disclosed in the climate gate emails where they dicuss who to check the work many times.<<<

Sh*t-for-brains, provide examples which show that's what happened and what the outcome was. Otherwise you're simply making accusations.

[Mack]

Your rants are not scary CM. Just tripe.

[CM]

How come the 'fake' data was almost entirely the same as the real data? How do you 'make up' data that is so close (actually it's identical)?

Anyone?