David Goone

The press release states, “IntercontinentalExchange, a leading operator of global regulated futures exchanges, clearing houses and over-the-counter (OTC) markets, announced today that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued it a patent for the business process that underpins ICE eConfirm, the company’s electronic trade confirmation service.

The patent (No. 8,007,743) covers the design of a computer system that matches and categorizes trades between a trader and counterparty based on the electronically submitted trade details. Additional aspects of the patent include translation of data values to those in a master database, electronic confirmation of trades governed by a master agreement, and a matching engine that compares and categorizes broker trade confirmations. These business methods constitute the foundation of ICE eConfirm, which has matched and confirmed more than 11 million trades since its launch in 2002.

“This patent recognizes ICE’s leadership in pairing technology with workflow enhancements to improve derivatives transaction processing and transparency,” said David Goone, Senior Vice President and Chief Strategic Officer. “Commodity market participants have benefited from the significant improvements in efficiencies brought about by ICE eConfirm over the last decade. We are pleased that this patent will help us protect ICE’s intellectual property and enable us to build out additional services for the industry.”

ICE eConfirm will serve as the front-end application for the ICE Trade Vault swap data repository (SDR) under the Dodd-Frank Act, and is slated to launch in early 2012. The combination of ICE Trade Vault and ICE eConfirm will streamline reporting by employing processes and systems already in use by the industry. Participants in the commodity markets will be able to use ICE eConfirm to submit non-cleared trades and end-user clearing exemptions in order to comply with new reporting requirements.

“The patented functionality makes ICE Trade Vault a compelling extension of our trade confirmation service for our customers,” said Bruce Tupper, ICE Trade Vault Vice President. “Customers will benefit from a cost-effective solution that relies on superior technology and enables seamless integration into existing workflows.”"

Read more: Press Release

ICE

According to the press release, “IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. (NYSE: ICE), a leading operator of regulated global exchanges, clearing houses and over-the-counter (OTC) markets, today reported consolidated revenues of $285 million in the fourth quarter of 2010, an increase of 11% from fourth quarter 2009 revenues of $257 million. Consolidated net income attributable to ICE for the fourth quarter grew 18% to $99 million from $84 million in the prior fourth quarter. Diluted earnings per share (EPS) in the fourth quarter were $1.34, up 19% from fourth quarter 2009 diluted EPS of $1.13.

For the fourth quarters ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, certain items were included in ICE’s operating results that management believes are not indicative of normal operating performance.  Excluding these items from fourth quarter results, fourth quarter 2010 net income attributable to ICE increased 19% to $100 million. Adjusted diluted EPS increased 21% to $1.35 in the fourth quarter of 2010.

For the year ended December 31, 2010, ICE reported consolidated revenues of $1.15 billion, the seventh consecutive year of record revenues and an increase of 16% from $995 million in 2009. Consolidated 2010 net income attributable to ICE grew 26% to a record $398 million, from $316 million in 2009, and diluted EPS increased 25% to $5.35 from $4.27. Consolidated cash flow from operations grew 10% from the prior year to a record $534 million in 2010.

“As part of our commitment to our customers and shareholders, ICE consistently leads in terms of execution on new opportunities and growth despite an uncertain economic and regulatory environment,” said ICE Chairman and CEO Jeffrey C. Sprecher. “We are serving the rising demands for risk management in global commodities and derivatives with our transparent markets and global clearing houses. With products that are globally relevant such as our flagship Brent crude and gasoil futures contracts, we are addressing risk management requirements and we will continue to bring innovation, growth and security to our customers and markets.”

Scott Hill, ICE SVP and CFO, said: “Once again in 2010, we delivered record revenues and earnings. The strength in our commodities business continues into 2011, and we continue to expand our trading, clearing and processing services for market participants world-wide. Our spending discipline, solid balance sheet and strong cash flow allow ICE to continue to invest in an expanded range of services for our customers, while delivering sector-leading growth and returns on capital.”"

Read more: ICE press release

The climate deal forged among more than 190 countries at the annual U.N. talks in Mexico’s Cancun beach resort on Saturday included agreements on measuring emissions, technology transfer and $100 billion in financing for developing countries from 2020.

A Green Climate Fund would help channel some of that aid.

The $100 billion in financing, contingent on developing countries helping to fight emissions and being transparent about it, came on top of a pledge made at last year’s talks in Copenhagen for fast-start financing of $30 billion for 2010 to 2012.

Four Republicans in the U.S. Senate — James Inhofe, John Barrasso, David Vitter and George Voinovich — have opposed the fast-start financing, saying the money should be spent on easing the deficit.

But the short-term financing is “extremely important, a core part of deal,” Todd Stern, the top U.S. climate diplomat, told reporters.

The State Department said the United States spent $1.7 billion in fiscal year 2010 on climate change mitigation and adaptation projects in developing countries, and President Barack Obama has asked Congress for $1.9 billion in fast-start financing for 2011.

“The fiscal situation is extremely tough in the U.S., it’s tough in Europe and other places as well, and we are going to have to do the best we possibly can to carry out and make good on the fast-start pledge made in Copenhagen and reiterated in Cancun,” Stern told a news conference.”

Read more: Reuters

This is not good news for cap and trade proponents as it will nearly end the trading of emissions credits in the United States. IntercontinentalExchange (ICE) bought CCE after spending around $600 million for it. European operations will continue however.

ICE

According to the press release, “Through 21 September, ICE’s CDS clearing houses have cleared $12 trillion in gross notional with aggregate open interest of $1.1 trillion. ICE Clear Europe has cleared euro 3.4 trillion ($4.6 trillion) of gross notional value of CDS transactions, including euro 530 billion in single-name CDS, resulting in euro 443 billion ($580 billion) of open interest. ICE Trust has cleared $7.4 trillion of gross notional value, including more than $3 billion in buy-side clearing and $455 billion in single name clearing, resulting in open interest of $494 billion.”

Source: ICE Press Release

AFD, EIB and EDFI members will sign a Memorandum of Understanding for THE INTERACT CLIMATE CHANGE FUND (ICCF) at a meeting in Bruges on Friday. The Parties intend to establish an investment matching facility to invest in private sector climate change projects in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific, Asia and Latin America before the end of 2010.

The institutions have extensive experience operating across developing countries and emerging markets and share a joint interest in financing climate change and climate efficiency projects with the aim of creating a portfolio of climate friendly private sector investments in target countries.

Partners will seek to demonstrate the financial attractiveness of climate-friendly projects to private sector investors in developing countries and emerging markets and will commit to act as catalyst lead investors to attract additional long-term investments.

The institutions will further promote use of clean technology as an integral part of economic development and provide long term financing for renewable energy projects in countries facing acute energy shortages and restricted energy access, further contributing to economic development;

Funding is expected to be provided by Agence Française de Développement, the European Investment Bank through the Cotonou Investment Facility and 12 EDFI members: BIO (Belgium), CDC (United Kingdom), COFIDES (Spain), DEG (Germany), FINNFUND (Finland), FMO (the Netherlands), IFU (Denmark), NORFUND (Norway), OeEB (Austria), PROPARCO (France), Sifem (Switzerland) and SWEDFUND (Sweden).

The initiative has the twin aim of promoting sustainable development of private sector climate change projects and strengthening meaningful co-operation between European Development Finance Institutions, AFD and the European Investment Bank.

The European Investment Bank’s Director General for Operations outside the European Union and Candidate Countries, Martin Curwen, the acting Director General of AFD, Jean Michel Debrat, and the Chairman of EDFI, Luc Rigouzzo, expressed their commitment to the ICCF initiative at the signing ceremony in Bruges. ”

Source: Press Release

ICE

According to the Press Release, “Intercontinental Exchange (NYSE: ICE), a leading operator of regulated global futures exchanges, clearing houses and over-the-counter (OTC) markets, today announced that it has agreed on terms to acquire Climate Exchange plc (Climate Exchange or CLE), a leader in the development of traded emissions markets. Climate Exchange operates the European Climate Exchange (ECX), the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) and the Chicago Climate Futures Exchange (CCFE).

Under the terms of the acquisition, Climate Exchange shareholders will receive 7.50 pounds Sterling in cash for each share in Climate Exchange held at today’s date, valuing the entire existing issued and to be issued share capital of Climate Exchange at approximately 395 million pounds ($604 million(1)). The transaction consideration will include $220 million that has been drawn from ICE’s existing credit facilities for these purposes(2) and the remainder from existing cash resources. The transaction is expected to be accretive to earnings in 2011 and slightly dilutive to earnings for the balance of the current year(3) following an anticipated closing at the end of July 2010. ICE, through its wholly-owned subsidiary IntercontinentalExchange Holdings, acquired a 4.8% stake in CLE on June 22, 2009 for 6.45 pounds a share. Additional details will be provided upon the completion of the transaction, at which time Climate Exchange will be a wholly-owned subsidiary of ICE, operating under the Climate Exchange’s respective brand names.

“The combination of Climate Exchange’s emissions markets and ICE’s futures and OTC energy markets is an important and logical strategic combination for our customers and shareholders, and clearly an exciting opportunity for ICE to grow and further diversify our revenues,” said ICE Chairman and CEO Jeffrey C. Sprecher. “ICE has been a partner with Climate Exchange and Dr. Sandor since 2003, and we have worked together toward the development and expansion of the emissions markets. The leadership that Climate Exchange has shown in establishing market standards in Europe, and increasingly the U.S. and Asia, has driven its success, and we see continued growth opportunities within these nascent markets globally.”

“The development of our Company from initial concept to its leadership role in global environmental markets is a tribute to the vision and efforts of our entire team. We believe that a combination with ICE makes strategic sense and look forward to addressing continued opportunities together,” said Climate Exchange’s Chairman Richard Sandor. “ICE has committed to further developing the Climate Exchange businesses and building on our joint track record of innovation and success to the benefit of our customers across futures and OTC markets in Europe, Asia and the U.S.”

ICE and its affiliates currently have multiple contracts in place with Climate Exchange and its affiliates to provide technology and clearing services. These contracts include a cooperation and licensing agreement whereby ICE provides an electronic trading platform and clearing to ECX for European emissions trading, a licensing technology agreement whereby ICE provides an electronic trading platform to CCX for U.S. emissions trading and a clearing services agreement whereby ICE provides clearing for CCX’s U.S. emissions markets. Pursuant to these contracts, ICE charges fees to Climate Exchange for the services provided and shares in the revenue with respect to the trading and clearing of emissions contracts.

The transaction is subject to relevant regulatory approvals. Morgan Stanley advised ICE on the transaction and Shearman & Sterling LLP served as ICE’s legal advisor.

(1) Based on an USD/GBP exchange rate of 1.528

(2) A detailed description of these credit facilities can be found in Form 8-K as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2010.

(3) Nothing in this announcement is intended to be a profit forecast and the statements in this announcement should not be interpreted to mean that the earnings per share of IntercontinentalExchange common stock for the current or future financial periods will necessarily be greater or lower than those for the relevant preceding financial period.”

Source: Intercontinental Exchange Press Release

According to Reuters, “Investors are becoming less convinced that a global carbon market, estimated to be worth about $2 trillion by the end of the decade, can be established as uncertainty over global climate policy persists.

The absence of legally binding global climate deal and a federal emissions trading scheme in the United States are standing in the way of the market in global emissions trading growing to achieve yearly turnover of $2 trillion by 2020.

“There will only be a $2 trillion market if the U.S. gets on board,” Trevor Sikorski, head of carbon research at Barclays Capital, told Reuters at a carbon conference in Amsterdam.

The market for carbon credits was worth around $136 billion last year, according to analysts Point Carbon.

Highlighting these fading hopes, a Point Carbon survey on Wednesday showed 61 percent of respondents said they expected a U.S. emissions trading scheme by 2015, down from 90 percent last year. They also predict a lower global carbon price of 31 euros ($41.92) a tonne in 2020, compared to 35 euros.

Carbon markets allow polluters to buy and emit carbon dioxide, blamed for global warming. Under such “cap-and-trade” schemes, companies or countries face a carbon limit. If they exceed that limit they can buy allowances from others.”

To read more, source: Reuters

Corn Field

Backgrounder on the Union of Concerned Scientists:

Founded in 1969, it was born out of a teach-in organized by a group of scientists and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to protest the militarization of scientific research and promote science in the public interest. This non-profit has a history of going against US Conservative Energy policy and research.

Their argument is posted below:

“Attacks on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Obscure Real Science

Over the last few months, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been attacked for minor errors in its sprawling 2007 report on climate change. To set the record straight and provide appropriate scientific context, the Union of Concerned Scientists has assembled a series of explanatory backgrounders on specific allegations about the report.

Overall, the IPCC’s conclusions remain indisputable: Climate change is happening now and human activity is causing it. Nations around the world will have to adapt to at least some climate change, including sea level rise, changes in precipitation, disruptions to agriculture, and species extinctions. But if we dramatically reduce our emissions, we can prevent the worst effects of climate change.

* What is the IPCC?
* Himalayan glaciers won’t be gone by 2035, but glaciers around the world are retreating
* The IPCC got the science right about drought and fire threats to Amazon, but got its citations wrong
* More extreme weather from climate change will cause expensive damage
* Chinese temperature records are reliable and consistent with global warming

What is the IPCC?

The IPCC is the world’s leading body for assessing climate science. It was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) in recognition of the problem of global warming. Through the IPCC, climate experts from around the world synthesize the most recent climate science findings every five to seven years and present their report to the world’s political leaders. Thus far, the IPCC has issued comprehensive assessments in 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007.

The IPCC’s 2007 report is the most comprehensive synthesis of climate change science to date. Experts from more than 130 countries working over six years contributed to the assessment. More than 450 lead authors received input from more than 800 contributing authors, and an additional 2,500 experts reviewed the draft documents.

The 2007 report is comprised of three sections, or working groups, that focus on the scientific basis of global warming (Working Group I), its consequences (Working Group II), and options for mitigation (Working Group III). The IPCC released summaries of the three working group documents over the course of 2007, culminating in the publication of the final “synthesis report” at the end of the year.

The inclusive and transparent process by which IPCC assessments are developed, reviewed and accepted by experts and governments helps ensure scientific credibility and value for informing officials when they formulate climate policies. As with any human endeavor, errors are possible. It is a testament to the quality of the IPCC that errors have been few, and when identified, they have been corrected. A concerted effort to improve the quality of the IPCC process is essential.

Himalayan glaciers won’t be gone by 2035, but glaciers around the world are retreating

The second of three 2007 IPCC reports included a statement that the likelihood that Himalayan glaciers will disappear “by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high.” It is not clear how this unsupported assertion made it into the report, although it was openly challenged by some researchers during the review and editing process. On January 20, the IPCC released a statement (pdf) on this issue. It says, in part, “The Chair, Vice-Chairs, and Co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance.”

The claim was part of the full review of climate science and impacts provided in the dense, 3,000-page report, but was not mentioned in its highly visible summaries for policymakers. Presumably the working group did not consider the 2035 Himalayan glaciers claim to be reliable enough for its policymaker summary. The statement in the summary was much less specific. “If current warming rates are maintained,” it stated, “Himalayan glaciers could decay at very rapid rates.”

Given the sprawling nature of the IPCC, it is not surprising to find relatively minor errors. Such mistakes do not undermine the overall conclusions of the organization’s reports, which are subject to an exhaustive review process.

What should not get lost is the fact that glaciers around the world are melting rapidly.

A 2005 global survey of 442 glaciers from the World Glacier Monitoring Service found that only 26 were advancing, 18 were stationary, and 398 were retreating. Overall, about 90 percent of the world’s glaciers that scientists have measured are shrinking as the planet warms.

Because scientific understanding of how fast snow and ice is responding to global warming is still developing, the IPCC largely left the effect of melting glaciers and ice sheets out of its sea-level rise projections in 2007 and primarily considered the effects that thermal expansion has on the ocean.

New analyses indicate that the shrinking land-based ice could lead to a sea-level rise of 2.6 feet (0.8 meter) by the end of the century; and, although 6.6 feet (2.0 meters) is less likely, it is still physically possible.

Melting glaciers and the resulting sea-level rise are a threat to coastal communities around the world. According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s 2009 review of climate impacts in the United States, “Sea-level rise and storm surge place many U.S. coastal areas at increasing risk of erosion and flooding, especially along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, Pacific Islands, and parts of Alaska. Energy and transportation infrastructure and other property in coastal areas are very likely to be adversely affected.”

Melting glaciers also will threaten drinking water supplies. An August 2008 Geophysical Research Letters study that examined the impact of the melting Himalayan Naimona’nyi glacier concluded, “If Naimona’nyi is characteristic of other glaciers in the region, alpine glacier meltwater surpluses are likely to shrink much faster than currently predicted with substantial consequences for approximately half a billion people.”

The IPCC got the science right about drought and fire threats to Amazon, but got its citations wrong

A sentence in Chapter 13 of the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability states: “Up to 40 percent of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation.”

In other words, climate change makes drought in the Amazon basin more likely. In drought years, trees are more likely to die and forests become more susceptible to fires. In wet years, fires often stop at the forests’ edge because the forest soil is so moist.

The passage cites a report from the World Wildlife Federation (WWF) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), an organization that includes more than 1,000 government and NGO member organizations, and nearly 11,000 volunteer scientists in more than 160 countries. (News stories have inaccurately described the report as a sole product of WWF.)

It would have been preferable for the IPCC to have cited the original scientific peer-reviewed literature rather than the WWF-IUCN report. Further, the WWF-IUCN report was scientifically correct, but it did not cite the correct papers by Dan Nepstad, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Research Center on Cape Cod, and his colleagues.

John Cook, the editor of SkepticalScience.com, summarized the citation error in the WWF-IUCU report:

“The WWF correctly states that 630,000 km2 of forests were severely drought stressed in 1998 — this figure comes from Nepstad et al. 1999. However, the 40 percent figure comes from several other papers by the same author that the WWF failed to cite. A 1994 paper estimated that around half of the Amazonian forests lost large portions of their available soil moisture during drought (Nepstad et al. 1994). In 2004, new rainfall data showed that half of the forest area of the Amazon Basin had either fallen below, or was very close to, the critical level of soil moisture below which trees begin to die (Nepstad et al. 2004). The results from these papers are consistent with the original statement: ‘Up to 40 percent of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall.’”

It is also worth nothing that Nepstad and other researchers further confirmed the link between drought and fire in papers published after the IPCC’s deadline for research that could be included in this section of its 2007 report.

Cook continues:

“Subsequent research has provided additional confirmation of the Amazonian forest’s vulnerability to drought. Field measurements of the soil moisture critical threshold found that tree mortality rates increase dramatically during drought (Nepstad et al. 2007). Another study measured the effect of the intense 2005 drought on Amazonian biomass (Phillips et al. 2009). The drought caused massive tree mortality leading to a fall in biomass. This turned the region from a large carbon sink to a carbon producer. The paper concluded that ‘such events appear capable of strongly altering the regional carbon balance and thereby accelerating climate change.’”

While the IPCC should have cited the original peer-reviewed literature, not a summary of that literature by WWF and IUCN, the basic science was sound. And regardless of how the IPCC cited the references, tropical forests are increasingly vulnerable to drought and fire because of climate change as well as from forest degradation from destructive logging practices.

More extreme weather from climate change will cause expensive damage

There is a clear scientific consensus — based on the conclusions of many peer-reviewed papers — that climate change is causing an increase in storms with heavy precipitation. This is due in part because warmer air retains more moisture, setting the stage for heavier rain and snow storms in areas that typically experience rain or snow. Between 1958 and 2007, New England saw a 67 percent increase in heavy precipitation events and the Midwest experienced a 31 percent increase, according to the 2009 federal report “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States.” The report documented a 20 percent average increase for the entire country.

The 2007 IPCC report also was clear about how climate change would affect hurricanes. It concluded that hurricane intensity worldwide likely would increase, and that there could be fewer weak hurricanes. The report included numerous references to peer-reviewed studies that draw this conclusion, which was confirmed by studies conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other institutions.

The science linking climate change to increased severity of extreme weather is well-substantiated in peer-reviewed literature. Even so, some contrarians have recently cited another, older controversy to try to give the false impression that these findings are in question. That controversy centers on how the 2007 report characterized the economic cost of an increase in severe weather. Contrarians specifically point to a complaint by Roger Pielke Jr., a University of Colorado environmental studies professor, that the 2007 report misrepresented the reasons why economic losses from natural disasters have significantly increased over the years. Pielke says that the primary drivers for increased costs are economic factors, such as changes in wealth and population along the coasts.

The IPCC report did not dispute that fact, and it prominently cited Pielke’s research. It also cited one study that suggested that factors other than economic ones may be driving costs, but included a number of caveats in that citation. This is in keeping with the IPCC’s task of presenting a balanced view of the literature. Specifically, the report concluded in its “Summary for Policy Makers” section: “Costs and benefits of climate change for industry, settlement [cities and towns] and society will vary widely by location and scale. In the aggregate, however, net effects will tend to be more negative the larger the change in climate.” And it found: “Where extreme weather events become more intense and/or more frequent, the economic and social costs of those events will increase, and these increases will be substantial in the areas most directly affected.”

Pielke specifically objected to the IPCC including unpublished material on economic costs of natural disasters in its 2007 report. This practice, however, is not unusual for the IPCC. IPCC procedures state that “…it is increasingly apparent that materials relevant to IPCC reports, in particular, information about the experience and practice of the private sector in mitigation and adaptation activities, are found in sources that have not been published or peer-reviewed (e.g., industry journals, internal organizational publications, non-peer reviewed reports or working papers of research institutions, proceedings of workshops, etc).” The IPCC provides guidelines for the inclusion of such research, including clear citation. In any case, more published research is needed on the economic costs of climate change.

Chinese temperature records are reliable and consistent with global warming

Climate contrarians are falsely claiming Eastern Chinese temperature data first published in a 1990 Nature paper is compromised by the “urban heat island” effect. The term refers to the fact that buildings and asphalt are darker than surrounding countryside, often making cities and population centers hotter. Scientists have studied this effect since the mid-1800s and it is extensively referenced in the scientific literature. Overall, climate science indicates that the urban heat island effects has no bearing on global temperature trends and is insignificant compared to other adjustments routinely made to make temperature records more accurate,

When scientists measure global warming, they examine how much temperatures have changed over time. For instance, an urban station may have warmer thermometer readings compared with a rural station in the region, but global warming will cause temperatures to rise at both stations. To determine trends, scientists compare the difference between the temperatures at stations today and their average temperatures in the past.

Scientists worldwide, including those at leading American institutions, routinely correct station data for changes such as shifts in station location, different elevation, different time of daily observation, different latitudes, and instrument changes over time. For example, after such adjustments for stations across the United States, there was no detectable difference between urban and rural stations comparisons in each region.

Climate contrarians are using the Eastern Chinese temperature data to try to link manufactured controversies over citations in the IPCC’s 2007 report and the content of stolen emails from the University of East Anglia’s (UEA) Climatic Research Unit that were published online late last November. UEA has issued a statement rebutting these claims and addressing some freedom of information concerns raised by a recent story in the Guardian, a British newspaper. According to UCS, UEA could do more to be transparent, particularly by making relevant documents related to these and other charges easily accessible online.

The 2007 IPCC report does cite papers on the Eastern Chinese data — along with thousands of other papers. And some of the stolen emails included passages that mentioned the Chinese data. But just like the previous manufactured controversies, these accusations shed little light on the science in question.

In fact, the Eastern China temperature data referenced in the Guardian article and other news stories are reliable and are only a minuscule part of the global temperature record data that indicate that the Earth’s average temperatures are rising. It should be noted the “urban heat island” effect does not in any way affect the vast number of temperature records measured outside of cities or in the ocean.

Eastern China is warming in a way consistent with the rise in global average temperatures. The 1990 Nature paper in question was backed up by several other studies, as the University of East Anglia noted.

When University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit Director Phil Jones and other researchers conducted their 1990 research, they found little difference in temperature between 42 urban stations and 42 suburban temperature stations in Eastern China. A 2008 study by Jones and other researchers, which examined 728 temperatures stations in Eastern China, confirmed that there was an insignificant difference between temperatures in urban and suburban areas. However, by comparing the difference between all the Eastern China land stations to the nearby ocean temperatures, the 2008 paper did find significant warming from increased urbanization on the land — 0.1 degrees Celsius per decade between 1951 and 2004. Overall, the study found Eastern China warmed 0.8 degrees Celsius over the same time period largely due to global warming.Chinese temperature records are reliable and consistent with global warming”

Source: Union of Concerned Scientists