Monday, March 12, 2012


date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:23:02 -0400
from: Mike MacCracken <>
subject: Re: Question on temperature record in China
to: Phil Jones <>

Thanks Phil--very helpful.

There were indeed a number of Skeptics, but also a lot of people across the
disciplines eager for information, and of course impressed by IPCC. Were no
one like me there to keep going after the Skeptics and talking to the others
in the in between times, they would, it seems to me, be more likely to think
there is something serious about the opposition of the Skeptics--but the way
it came off, with me going after Zichichi and his skepticism, I think was
helpful to the others.

Now, I did get a few things to get back to Skeptics and others about. One is
the temperature of the Arctic and how representative it is given the limited
observations in the first half of the 20th century outside the Atlantic
sector. I am actually wondering if what might have happened in that sector
early on was a combination of a diminution of the volcanic aerosol and a
strong enhancement of the soot deposition from US, Europe, and Soviet
Union--coming from the initial tall stacks (constructed to loft the
pollution away from emissions points) and falling on the sea ice, etc. in
the North Atlantic sector. I should check the ice core records for soot,
though dark particles would, I imagine, melt their way down through the

Best, Mike

On 8/23/09 6:04 AM, "Phil Jones" <> wrote:

> Mike,
> Here's a paper of mine from 2008 on China.
> Figure 8 shows what you'd get for greater China back to
> 1900 and compared with SST off the eastern Chinese coast.
> Agreement good with Chinese data from 1950 from Li et al.
> I think the Wang is PK Wang and the paper is some years old.
> There are lots of Wangs though....
> One issue is that all the stations with data prior to late 1940s
> would be in the east. Western half only starts since 1950.
> One other issue is that many Chinese works include some
> paleo data to try to help in the west - trees, ice cores etc,
> but you never know how they do it. They also all seem to be
> by a Wang...
> The China region I chose included some data from Russia
> (well USSR) to get stations near the border with
> Mongolia.
> Hope you're enjoying the meeting - I know there are lots of
> skeptics there.
> Cheers
> Phil
>> Hi Phil--I am at an international meeting in Erice, Sicily, and during a
>> presentation by some Chinese scientists, one showed a temperature record
>> for
>> China that drew a number of questions (as did the global record for the WW
>> II upward bump in the record--but I have mentioned that to you before).
>> The China record, cited to P. Wang, showed a strong warming that seemed to
>> have a peak in the 1920s/30s and a second strong upward bump in the 1940s
>> as
>> well as the rise over last several decades. The question was mainly on the
>> reasons for the extended peak during second quarter of the 20th century.
>> There were a few thoughts:
>> (1) some say this record reported on by Want is not generally viewed as
>> reliable--I don't know the entire reference, but it was plotted in same
>> way
>> as your record on same graph, so I was wondering if this is the China land
>> stations in your record?
>> (2) for much of the time of this rise, China was at war with Japan, and so
>> it is a bit hard to understand how the Chinese could have kept a stable
>> network over this time (I just finished the book "The Man who Loved China"
>> which is the story of Joseph Needham, whom I assume you know of given his
>> British career story--and my grandfather was in China during much of this
>> time), so I would think that there might be large uncertainties. So, is
>> the
>> set of stations stable and thought to be good?
>> (3) if this is indeed from your record, does this suggest that some of
>> what
>> appears to be the global warming is affected by what this record indicates
>> is happening in China; and what would the global record look like without
>> the China data--if it is indeed thought that this record might be flawed.
>> In any case, this record did raise a number of questions that the paper's
>> author, who was focusing on a quite different aspect of science, could not
>> defend or explain.
>> Thanks for any insight that you can offer.
>> Best, Mike MacCracken

No comments:

Post a Comment