From: Phil Jones
To: mann@vxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: John L. Daly dead
Date: Thu Jan 29 14:17:01 2004

From: Timo H‰meranta
To:
Subject: John L. Daly dead
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:04:28 +0200
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
Importance: Normal

Mike,
In an odd way this is cheering news ! One other thing about the CC paper – just found
another email – is that McKittrick says it is standard practice in Econometrics journals
to give all the data and codes !! According to legal advice IPR overrides this.

Cheers
Phil

“It is with deep sadness that the Daly Family have to announce the sudden death of John
Daly.Condolences may be sent to John’s email account (aly@john-daly.com">daly@john-daly.com)
“
Reported with great sadness

Timo H‰meranta
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Timo H‰meranta, LL.M.
Moderator, Climatesceptics
Martinlaaksontie 42 B 9
01620 Vantaa
Finland, Member State of the European Union

Moderator: timohame@yxxxxx.xxx
Private: timo.hameranta@xxxxx.xx

Home page: [1]personal.inet.fi/koti/hameranta/climate.htm

Moderator of the discussion group “Sceptical Climate Science”
[2]groups.yahoo.com/group/climatesceptics

“To dwell only on horror scenarios of the future
shows only a lack of imagination”. (Kari Enqvist)

“If the facts change, I’ll change my opinion.
What do you do, Sir” (John Maynard Keynes)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0)xxxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxx.xx.xx
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-

References

1. http://personal.inet.fi/koti/hameranta/climate.htm
2. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatesceptics
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc:

,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK

—————————————————————————-
From: Jonathan Overpeck
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: letter to Senate
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:49:31 -0700
Cc: Caspar M Ammann , Raymond Bradley , Keith Briffa , Tom Crowley , Malcolm Hughes , Phil Jones , mann@xxxxx.xxx, jto@xxxxx.xx.xxx, omichael@xxxxx.xxx, Tim Osborn , Kevin Trenberth , Tom Wigley

Hi all – I’m not too comfortable with this, and would rather not sign – at least not
without some real time to think it through and debate the issue. It is unprecedented and
political, and that worries me.

My vote would be that we don’t do this without a careful discussion first.

I think it would be more appropriate for the AGU or some other scientific org to do this -
e.g., in reaffirmation of the AGU statement (or whatever it’s called) on global climate
change.

Think about the next step – someone sends another letter to the Senators, then we respond,
then…

I’m not sure we want to go down this path. It would be much better for the AGU etc to do
it.

What are the precedents and outcomes of similar actions? I can imagine a special-interest
org or group doing this like all sorts of other political actions, but is it something for
scientists to do as individuals?

Just seems strange, and for that reason I’d advise against doing anything with out real
thought, and certainly a strong majority of co-authors in support.

Cheers, Peck

Dear fellow Eos co-authors,
Given the continued assault on the science of climate change by some on Capitol Hill,
Michael and I thought it would be worthwhile to send this letter to various members of
the U.S. Senate, accompanied by a copy of our Eos article.
Can we ask you to consider signing on with Michael and me (providing your preferred
title and affiliation). We would like to get this out ASAP.
Thanks in advance,
Michael M and Michael O

______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxx.xxx Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) xxx-xxxxx
http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:EOS.senate letter-final.doc (WDBN/MSWD) (00055FCF)

–

Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +xxxx
fax: +1 520 792-8795
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Faculty_Pages/Overpeck.J.html http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/

And, you get to see somebody with the name of phil jones say that he would rather destroy the CRU data than release it to McIntyre.
And lots lots more. including how to obstruct or evade FOIA requests. and guess who funded the collection of cores at Yamal.. and transferred money into a personal account in Russia
And you get to see what they really say behind the curtain..
you get to see how they “shape” the news, how they struggled between telling the truth and making policy makers happy.
you get to see what they say about Idso and pat micheals, you
get to read how they want to take us out into a dark alley, it’s stunning all very stunning. You get to watch somebody named phil jones say that John daly’s death is good news.. or words to that effect.

0926010576.txt * Mann: working towards a common goal
1189722851.txt * Jones: “try and change the Received date!”
0924532891.txt * Mann vs. CRU
0847838200.txt * Briffa & Yamal 1996: “too much growth in recent years makes it difficult to derive a valid age/growth curve”
0926026654.txt * Jones: MBH dodgy ground
1225026120.txt * CRU’s truncated temperature curve
1059664704.txt * Mann: dirty laundry
1062189235.txt * Osborn: concerns with MBH uncertainty
0926947295.txt * IPCC scenarios not supposed to be realistic
0938018124.txt * Mann: “something else” causing discrepancies
0939154709.txt * Osborn: we usually stop the series in 1960
0933255789.txt * WWF report: beef up if possible
0998926751.txt * “Carefully constructed” model scenarios to get “distinguishable results”
0968705882.txt * CLA: “IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science but production of results”
1075403821.txt * Jones: Daly death “cheering news”
1029966978.txt * Briffa – last decades exceptional, or not?
1092167224.txt * Mann: “not necessarily wrong, but it makes a small difference” (factor 1.29)
1188557698.txt * Wigley: “Keenan has a valid point”
1118949061.txt * we’d like to do some experiments with different proxy combinations
1120593115.txt * I am reviewing a couple of papers on extremes, so that I can refer to them in the chapter for AR4

Excerpt:
a new way of thinking

Once we’ve eliminated the myths, there is room for some new ideas. These principles relate to some of the key ideas emerging from behaviour change modelling for sustainable development:

5. Climate change must be ‘front of mind’ before persuasion works
Currently, telling the public to take notice of climate change is as successful as selling tampons to men. People don’t realise (or remember) that climate change relates to them.

6. Use both peripheral and central processing Attracting direct attention to an issue can change attitudes, but peripheral messages can be just as effective: a tabloid snapshot of Gwyneth Paltrow at a bus stop can help change attitudes to public transport.

7. Link climate change mitigation to positive desires/aspirations Traditional marketing associates products with the aspirations of their target audience. Linking climate change mitigation to home improvement, self-improvement, green spaces or national pride are all worth investigating.

8. Use transmitters and social learning People learn through social interaction, and some people are better teachers and trendsetters than others. Targeting these people will ensure that messages seem more trustworthy and are transmitted more effectively.

9. Beware the impacts of cognitive dissonance Confronting someone with the difference between their attitude and their actions on climate change will make them more likely to change their attitude than their actions.

From: John Daly
To: n.nicholls@BoM.Gov.Au
Subject: Re: Climatic warming in Tasmania
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 1996 20:04:00 +1100
Cc: Ed Cook , NNU-NB@palais.natmus.min.dk, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, Mike Barbetti , zetterberg@joyl.joensuu.fi, rjf@dar.csiro.au

Dear Neville,

You mentioned to me some time ago that in your view, the 11-year solar cycle
did not influence temperature. There have been numerous attempts by
academics to establish a correlation, but each has been shot down on some
ground or other. I remember Barrie Pittock was especially dismissive of
attempts to correlate solar cycle with temperature.

Have you tried this approach?

Load "Mathematica" into your PC and run the following set of instructions -

data = ReadList[ "c:sydney.txt", Number]
dataElements = Length[data]
X = ListPlot[ data, PlotJoined-> True];
fourierTrans = Fourier[data];
ListPlot[Abs[fourierTrans], PlotJoined -> True];

fitfun1 = Fit[data,{1,x,x^2,x^3,Sin[11 2 Pi x/dataElements],
Cos[11 2 Pi x/dataElements]},x];
fittable = Table[N[fitfun1], {x, dataElements}];
Y = ListPlot[fittable, PlotJoined -> True];
Show[X, Y]

The reference to "c:sydney.txt" is a suggested pathname for the following
set of data - which is Sydney's annual mean temperature.

16.8 16.5 16.8 17 17 16.7 17.1 17.4 17.9 17.4 17.2 17.1 16.9 17 17.2 17.2 17.4
17.6 17.6 17.6 16.7 17.1 16.8 17.4 16.8 17.3 17.8 17.5 17.1 17.2 17.6 17.3 17.1
16.9 16.9 17.3 17.3 17.3 17.6 17.5 17.4 17.2 17.1 17.3 17.2 17.2 16.9 17.5 17.4
17.2 17 17.5 17.4 17.5 17.7 18.3 17.8 17.4 17.2 17.4 18.3 17.3 18 18.1 18 17.5
17.3 18 17 18.2 17.4 17.6 17.5 17.4 17.1 17.4 17.3 17.5 17.7 18 17.8 18 17.4
17.8 16.8 17.5 17.4 17.6 17.6 17.2 17.4 17.9 17.9 17.6 17.7 17.8 17.7 17.6 17.8
18.3 18 17.6 17.8 17.8 17.8 18.1 17.9 17.5 17.8 18.3 18 17.7 17.3 17.5 18.5 17.4
17.8 17.7 17.8 17.7 18 18.5 18.2 17.8 18.1 17.5 17.8 17.8 18 18.6 18.1 18.1
18.6

So Far so good.

"Mathematica" first plots out the data itself (see Atachment 1)

The first part of the instruction set lets "mathematica" do a Fourier Transform
on the data, ie. searching out the periodicities, if there are any. The result is
shown on Attachment 2.

The transform result shows a sharp spike at the 11 year point (I wonder
what is significant about 11 years?). The second part of the instructions
now acts upon this observed spike (the Cos 11 bit), to extract it's
waveform from the rest of the noise. The result is shown as a waveform
in attachment 3, the waves having an 11-year period, with the long-term
Sydney warming easily evident.

Attachment 4 shows the original Sydney data overlaid against the 11-year
periodicity.

It would appear that the solar cycle does indeed affect temperature.

(I tried the same run on the CRU global temperature set. Even though CRU
must be highly smoothed by the time all the averages are worked out, the
11-year pulse is still there, albeit about half the size of Sydneys).

Stay cool.

John Daly http://www.vision.net.au/~daly

Attachment Converted: c:eudoraattachSydney.gif

Attachment Converted: c:eudoraattachFourier.gif

Attachment Converted: c:eudoraattachSolar1.gif

Attachment Converted: c:eudoraattachSolar2.gif

From: "paul horsman"
To: m.kelly@uea.ac.uk
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:45:23 -0700

Hi Mick,

It was good to see you again yesterday - if briefly. One particular
thing you said - and we agreed - was about the IPCC reports and
the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation
agenda driven by organisations like the WTO. So my first question
is do you have anything written or published, or know of anything
particularly on this subject, which talks about this in more detail?

My second question is that I am invovled in a working group
organising a climate justice summit in the Hague and I wondered if
you had any contacts, ngos or individuals, with whom you have
worked especially from the small island States or similar areas,
who could be invited as a voice either to help on the working group
and/or to invite to speak?

All the best,

Paul

---------------
Paul V. Horsman
Oil Campaigner
Greenpeace International Climate Campaign
Greenpeace,
Canonbury Villas
London N1 2PN
Tel: +44 171 865 8286
Fax: +44 171 865 8201
Mob: +44 7801 212990

From: Gavin Schmidt
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: 14 Oct 2009 18:21:07 -0400
Cc: Tom Wigley , Kevin Trenberth , Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , "Philip D. Jones" , Benjamin Santer , Thomas R Karl , Jim Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

Tom, with respect to the difference between the models and the data, the
fundamental issue on short time scales is the magnitude of the internal
variability. Using the full CMIP3 ensemble at least has multiple
individual realisations of that internal variability and so is much more
suited to a comparison with a short period of observations. MAGICC is
great at the longer time scale, but its neglect of unforced variability
does not make it useful for these kinds of comparison.

The kind of things we are hearing "no model showed a cooling", the "data
is outside the range of the models" need to be addressed directly.

Gavin

On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 18:06, Michael Mann wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> thanks for the comments. well, ok. but this is the full CMIP3
> ensemble, so at least the plot is sampling the range of choices
> regarding if and how indirect effects are represented, what the cloud
> radiative feedback & sensitivity is, etc. across the modeling
> community. I'm not saying that these things necessarily cancel out
> (after all, there is an interesting and perhaps somewhat disturbing
> compensation between indirect aerosol forcing and sensitivity across
> the CMIP3 models that defies the assumption of independence), but if
> showing the full spread from CMIP3 is deceptive, its hard to imagine
> what sort of comparison wouldn't be deceptive (your point re MAGICC
> notwithstanding),
>
> perhaps Gavin has some further comments on this (it is his plot after
> all),
>
> mike
>
> On Oct 14, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Tom Wigley wrote:
> > Mike,
> >
> > The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical
> > runs with PCM look as though they match observations -- but the
> > match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low
> > climate sensitivity -- compensating errors. In my (perhaps too
> > harsh)
> > view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model
> > results by individual authors and by IPCC. This is why I still use
> > results from MAGICC to compare with observed temperatures. At least
> > here I can assess how sensitive matches are to sensitivity and
> > forcing assumptions/uncertainties.
> >
> > Tom.
> >
> > +++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > Michael Mann wrote:
> > > thanks Tom,
> > > I've taken the liberty of attaching a figure that Gavin put
> > > together the other day (its an update from a similar figure he
> > > prepared for an earlier RealClimate post. see:
> > > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc.... It is indeed worth a thousand words, and drives home Tom's point below. We're planning on doing a post on this shortly, but would be nice to see the Sep. HadCRU numbers first,
> > > mike
> > > On Oct 14, 2009, at 3:01 AM, Tom Wigley wrote:
> > > > Dear all,
> > > > At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the
> > > > recent
> > > > lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to
> > > > look at
> > > > the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic
> > > > trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second
> > > > is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the
> > > > observed data.
> > > > Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The
> > > > second
> > > > method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.
> > > > These sums complement Kevin's energy work.
> > > > Kevin says ... "The fact is that we can't account for the lack
> > > > of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't". I
> > > > do not
> > > > agree with this.
> > > > Tom.
> > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > Kevin Trenberth wrote:
> > > > > Hi all
> > > > > Well I have my own article on where the heck is global
> > > > > warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have
> > > > > broken records the past two days for the coldest days on
> > > > > record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days
> > > > > was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the
> > > > > previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F
> > > > > and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
> > > > > This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game
> > > > > was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below
> > > > > freezing weather).
> > > > > Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change
> > > > > planning: tracking Earth's global energy. /Current Opinion in
> > > > > Environmental Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27,
> > > > > doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]
> > > > > > > > > The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at
> > > > > the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data
> > > > > published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there
> > > > > should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.
> > > > > Our observing system is inadequate.
> > > > > That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People
> > > > > like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly
> > > > > correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the
> > > > > change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The
> > > > > PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO
> > > > > index became positive in September for first time since Sept
> > > > > 2007. see
> > > > > http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GO....
> > > > > Kevin
> > > > > Michael Mann wrote:
> > > > > > extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on
> > > > > > BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard
> > > > > > Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I
> > > > > > can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met
> > > > > > Office.
> > > > > > We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile
> > > > > > it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say
> > > > > > about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here?
> > > > > > mike
> > > > > > On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural
> > > > > > > variability and signal to noise and sampling errors to
> > > > > > > this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC? As we enter an
> > > > > > > El Nino year and as soon, as the sunspots get over their
> > > > > > > temporary--presumed--vacation worth a few tenths of a Watt
> > > > > > > per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be
> > > > > > > another dramatic upward spike like 1992-2000. I heard
> > > > > > > someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was willing to bet alot
> > > > > > > of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the
> > > > > > > past 10 years of global mean temperature trend stasis
> > > > > > > still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000
> > > > > > > year record and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in
> > > > > > > big retreat?? Some of you observational folks probably do
> > > > > > > need to straighten this out as my student suggests below.
> > > > > > > Such "fun", Cheers, Steve
> > > > > > > Stephen H. Schneider
> > > > > > > Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary
> > > > > > > Environmental Studies,
> > > > > > > Professor, Department of Biology and
> > > > > > > Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment
> > > > > > > Mailing address:
> > > > > > > Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205
> > > > > > > 473 Via Ortega
> > > > > > > Ph: 650 725 9978
> > > > > > > F: 650 725 4387
> > > > > > > Websites: climatechange.net
> > > > > > > patientfromhell.org
> > > > > > > ----- Forwarded Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "Narasimha D. Rao" > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To: "Stephen H Schneider" > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00
> > > > > > > US/Canada Pacific
> > > > > > > Subject: BBC U-turn on climate
> > > > > > > Steve,
> > > > > > > You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBCÿs
> > > > > > > reporter on climate change, on Friday wrote that thereÿs
> > > > > > > been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations
> > > > > > > will force cooling for the next 20-30 years. It is not
> > > > > > > outrageously biased in presentation as are other skepticsÿ
> > > > > > > views.
> > > > > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/natur....
> > > > > > > http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damian....
> > > > > > > BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside
> > > > > > > the US.
> > > > > > > Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from
> > > > > > > a scientist?
> > > > > > > Narasimha
> > > > > > > -------------------------------
> > > > > > > PhD Candidate,
> > > > > > > Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and
> > > > > > > Resources (E-IPER)
> > > > > > > Stanford University
> > > > > > > Tel: 415-812-7560
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Michael E. Mann
> > > > > > Professor
> > > > > > Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
> > > > > > Department of Meteorology Phone: (814)
> > > > > > 863-4075
> > > > > > 503 Walker Building FAX:
> > > > > > (814) 865-3663
> > > > > > The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu
> > > > > >
> > > > > > University Park, PA 16802-5013
> > > > > > website: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/inde....
> > > > > > > > > > > "Dire Predictions" book site:
> > > > > > http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/Di....
> > > > > --
> > > > > ****************
> > > > > Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu
> > > > >
> > > > > Climate Analysis Section,
> > > > > www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
> > > > > > > > > NCAR
> > > > > P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318
> > > > > Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)
> > > > > Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305
> > > >
> > > --
> > > Michael E. Mann
> > > Professor
> > > Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
> > > Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
> > > 503 Walker Building FAX: (814)
> > > 865-3663
> > > The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu
> > >
> > > University Park, PA 16802-5013
> > > website: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/inde....
> > > > > "Dire Predictions" book site:
> > > http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/Di....
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Michael E. Mann
> Professor
> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
>
> Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
> 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
> The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu
> University Park, PA 16802-5013
>
> website: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/inde....
> "Dire Predictions" book site:
> http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/Di....

From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:36:36 -0600
Cc: Tom Wigley , Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , "Philip D. Jones" , Benjamin Santer , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

Mike
Here are some of the issues as I see them:
Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation. What are the physical processes?
Where did the heat go? We know there is a build up of ocean heat prior to El Nino, and a
discharge (and sfc T warming) during late stages of El Nino, but is the observing system
sufficient to track it? Quite aside from the changes in the ocean, we know there are major
changes in the storm tracks and teleconnections with ENSO, and there is a LOT more rain on
land during La Nina (more drought in El Nino), so how does the albedo change overall
(changes in cloud)? At the very least the extra rain on land means a lot more heat goes
into evaporation rather than raising temperatures, and so that keeps land temps down: and
should generate cloud. But the resulting evaporative cooling means the heat goes into
atmosphere and should be radiated to space: so we should be able to track it with CERES
data. The CERES data are unfortunately wonting and so too are the cloud data. The ocean
data are also lacking although some of that may be related to the ocean current changes and
burying heat at depth where it is not picked up. If it is sequestered at depth then it
comes back to haunt us later and so we should know about it.
Kevin
Michael Mann wrote:

Kevin, that's an interesting point. As the plot from Gavin I sent shows, we can easily
account for the observed surface cooling in terms of the natural variability seen in
the CMIP3 ensemble (i.e. the observed cold dip falls well within it). So in that sense,
we can "explain" it. But this raises the interesting question, is there something going
on here w/ the energy & radiation budget which is inconsistent with the modes of
internal variability that leads to similar temporary cooling periods within the models.
I'm not sure that this has been addressed--has it?

m

On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:

Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where
energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not
close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is
happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as
we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Kevin

Tom Wigley wrote:

Steve McIntyre (Comment#23773) November 19th, 2009 at 6:08 pdf.

I’m having trouble getting into CA right now.

I made up a pdf of the emails to help browse through them and it’s over 2000 pages. Every email that I’ve examined so far looks genuine. There are a few emails of mine that are 100% genuine.

It is really quite breathtaking.

A couple realclimate notes I can’t resist:

Part of the original announcement, sent to a long list:

tux:mail> cat 1102687002.txt
From: Gavin Schmidt

Colleagues,

No doubt some of you share our frustration with the current state of
media reporting on the climate change issue. Far too often we see
agenda-driven “commentary” on the Internet and in the opinion columns of
newspapers crowding out careful analysis. Many of us work hard on
educating the public and journalists through lectures, interviews and
letters to the editor, but this is often a thankless task.

In order to be a little bit more pro-active, a group of us (see below)
have recently got together to build a new ‘climate blog’ website:
RealClimate.org which will be launched over the next few days at:

http://www.realclimate.org

The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where
we can mount a rapid response to supposedly ‘bombshell’ papers that are
doing the rounds and give more context to climate related stories or
events.

Some examples that we have already posted relate to combatting
dis-information regarding certain proxy reconstructions and supposed
‘refutations’ of the science used in Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.
We have also posted more educational pieces relating to the
interpretation of the ice core GHG records or the reason why the
stratosphere is cooling. We are keeping the content strictly scientific,
though at an accessible level.

———-

What it’s become:

tux:mail> cat 1139521913.txt
From: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa
Subject: update
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500
Cc: Gavin Schmidt

guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we
put up the RC post. By now, you’ve probably read that nasty McIntyre
thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don’t go
there personally, but so I’m informed).

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any way
you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about
what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any
questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you
might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold
comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think
they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d
like us to include.

You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a
resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put
forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our
best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’get to use the RC
comments as a megaphone…

HOW TEMPERATURE CHARTS AT HADLEY NEED TO BE DISCUSSED TO MAKE SURE THEY AGREE WITH THE CURRENT WARM PERIOD BEING WARMER THAN THE MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD – FROM DEEP COOL

At 14:10 15/01/2007, Michael E. Mann wrote:

Phil,
The attached piece is very good, impressive in the detail you’ve been able to dig up on this. Won’t pass this along. [No idea what the mysterious "this" is - Richard]
A couple minor comments:
1. I understand the point of the 50 year smoothing, but I think it would still be very useful to show were the most recent decade is on this scale. a lot of the recent warming is washed out by the padding at the end. People will look at this and say “see medieval peak was warmer than present”. but that doesn’t follow because so much of the warmning has been over past two decades.
2. I would not reference Wegman report as if it is a publication, i.e. a legitimate piece of scientific literature. Its a piece of something else! It should be cited in such a way as to indicate it is not a formal publication, wasn’t peer-reviewed, i.e. could be references as a “criticism commissoned by Joe Barton (R, Exxon). [ad hominen - tut tut Mr Mann]
3. I think that Stefan/Gavin were hoping to do something on RC sooner than the timeline you mention. What do you think about this? Do you want to forward the message to them and tell them the timeline you have in mind?
talk to you later,
mike
p.s. thanks very much for the ‘nomination’ , but you flatter me. I think that someone
farther along in their career such as Keith is more deserving at this time.

Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
Thanks.
On 1) Putting the last few years in zooms the CET curve much higher. Tim took out the last few years. I need to make this clearer in the caption. Padding is an issue with a 50-year smoother.
2) I agree Wegman isn’t a formal publication. This was the highest profile example I could come up to show abuse of the curve. if you know of any others then let me know.
Even Tom Crowley shouldn’t have used it. There is a belief in the UK, that a curve of UK/CET past temperatures (by summer and winter) exists. It doesn’t, but the winter curve from Lamb is probably a lot better than the summer one.

I’ll let you know on time-frame when I hear from a few more I’ve sent the piece to.
Cheers
Phil

Justin (16:07:02) :

From: “Michael E. Mann”

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

1054757526.txt

Here is a copy of a genuine email from Dr. Don Keiller to the BBC Radio4 (Planet earth under threat)

12. At 04:59 PM on 24 May 2006, Don Keiller wrote:
All to often we hear that there is a scientific “consensus” on climate change and its causes.
If this were the case why then is increasing evidence to the contrary being published in peer-reviewed scientific journals?
I could go on almost ad infinitum about such evidence, but I will restrict myself to one recent paper.
Briner et al (2006) Quaternary Research (65), pp. 431-432.
Check it out at http://www.sciencedirect.com.
Evidence is presented that some 8500 years ago the Canadian Arctic was 5 degrees C WARMER than at present. Also note that carbon dioxide levels were some 100ppm LOWER than at present.
Try and equate this with the modern myth that increased atmospheric CO2 = increased warmth.
(Dr. Don Keiller) Environmental Science research Centre, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge.

The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet.

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”.

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW.

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

As mentioned above by another poster… why are we referring to this as “Hadley CRU”? The Hadley Centre is part of the Met Office:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/hadleycentre/

While CRU is a completely different location AFAIK:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/

The latter is at the University of East Anglia and home to the following staff (as seen in the email headers):

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/

Notably Professor Phil Jones:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/pjones/

So presumably the title of the bl9og should read “Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released” (i.e. omit the Hadley reference).

Sadly the “Hadley CRU” thing is all over the blogosphere now…

The Met Office Hadley Centre is the UK’s foremost climate change research centre. We produce world-class guidance on the science of climate change and provide a focus in the UK for the scientific issues associated with climate change.

Largely co-funded by Defra (the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), the Ministry of Defence and Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), we provide in-depth information to, and advise, the Government on climate change issues.

As one of the world’s leading centres for climate change research, our scientists make significant contributions to peer-reviewed literature and to a variety of climate change reports, including the Assessment Report of the IPCC. Our climate projections were the basis for the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change.

As many of you will be aware, a large number of emails from the University of East Anglia webmail server were hacked recently (Despite some confusion generated by Anthony Watts, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Hadley Centre which is a completely separate institution). As people are also no doubt aware the breaking into of computers and releasing private information is illegal, and regardless of how they were obtained, posting private correspondence without permission is unethical. We therefore aren’t going to post any of the emails here. We were made aware of the existence of this archive last Tuesday morning when the hackers attempted to upload it to RealClimate, and we notified CRU of their possible security breach later that day.

Nonetheless, these emails (a presumably careful selection of (possibly edited?) correspondence dating back to 1996 and as recently as Nov 12) are being widely circulated, and therefore require some comment. Some of them involve people here (and the archive includes the first RealClimate email we ever sent out to colleagues) and include discussions we’ve had with the CRU folk on topics related to the surface temperature record and some paleo-related issues, mainly to ensure that posting were accurate.

Since emails are normally intended to be private, people writing them are, shall we say, somewhat freer in expressing themselves than they would in a public statement. For instance, we are sure it comes as no shock to know that many scientists do not hold Steve McIntyre in high regard. Nor that a large group of them thought that the Soon and Baliunas (2003), Douglass et al (2008) or McClean et al (2009) papers were not very good (to say the least) and should not have been published. These sentiments have been made abundantly clear in the literature (though possibly less bluntly).

More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.

Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in ‘robust’ discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking.

It’s obvious that the noise-generating components of the blogosphere will generate a lot of noise about this. but it’s important to remember that science doesn’t work because people are polite at all times. Gravity isn’t a useful theory because Newton was a nice person. QED isn’t powerful because Feynman was respectful of other people around him. Science works because different groups go about trying to find the best approximations of the truth, and are generally very competitive about that. That the same scientists can still all agree on the wording of an IPCC chapter for instance is thus even more remarkable.

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

The timing of this particular episode is probably not coincidental. But if cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal emails is the only response to the weight of the scientific evidence for the human influence on climate change, then there probably isn’t much to it.

There are of course lessons to be learned. Clearly no-one would have gone to this trouble if the academic object of study was the mating habits of European butterflies. That community’s internal discussions are probably safe from the public eye. But it is important to remember that emails do seem to exist forever, and that there is always a chance that they will be inadvertently released. Most people do not act as if this is true, but they probably should.

It is tempting to point fingers and declare that people should not have been so open with their thoughts, but who amongst us would really be happy to have all of their email made public?

Let he who is without PIN cast the the first stone.

The first sentence is something I've been trying to point out for a while now:

Quote:

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW.

My current view is:

1. AGW = no good scientific evidence for it. It's natural variability.
2. Peak Oil = good scientific evidence for it. Makes sense.

The solutions to both are similar, but slightly different.
And IMO peak oil is a serious issue.
I've not understood why AGW is being promoted so much when peak oil is the real issue.

My purpose is to alert you to revision of SEC Regulation S-K and Regulation S-X effective
January 1, 2010. Concealed in a handful of benign new regs is a financial truck bomb that's
going to blow away "proved reserves" as a meaningful metric of oil company assets.

When an entire industry goes haywire, like the "toxic asset" meltdown that almost killed commercial banking and made rating agencies look like sell-side hookers, investors want to know: What the hell went so horribly wrong?

The answer is straightforward. Statistical rocket science wrongly predicted a AAA happy meal from diseased meat, lean tails, and worthless guarantees. Something similar is happening now (very quietly, almost stealthily) in the energy sector.

6
Ian Watson says:
20 November 2009 at 1:11 PM

“It is tempting to point fingers and declare that people should not have been so open with their thoughts, but who amongst us would really be happy to have all of their email made public?”

I’d venture a guess at: “anyone without something to hide”.

10
lgarvin says:
20 November 2009 at 1:15 PM

“Clearly no-one would have gone to this trouble if the academic object of study was the mating habits of European butterflies.”

That depends on whether or not people were trying to re-order the global economy on the basis of those butterfly studies. And whether or not some folks had tried to substitute the odd moth in order to “hide the decline.”

8
Jack Kelly says:
20 November 2009 at 1:13 PM

Good post; many thanks for reacting so quickly. I think the enthusiasm with which many of the AGW-sceptics have jumped on this hack tells us more about the sceptics than the scientists. James Delingpole of the Telegraph, for example, is jumping up and down claiming that this may well be the greatest scandal of modern science.

11
Karl Bellve says:
20 November 2009 at 1:16 PM

Asking people to delete emails, in an email, with the SUBJECT: line containing FOI is indeed a serious problem.

18
Tim says:
20 November 2009 at 1:25 PM

What I love is that it’s so controversial these were “leaked” in the first place.

Shouldn’t any person collecting public money, using public resources, etc be open to sunshine laws from the start? I would think the cavalier attitude shows more about the insulation of the subjects from the people they joyfully cash checks from. Much less just have independent non-involved entities verify their work.

24
Adam Gallon says:
20 November 2009 at 1:30 PM

Certainly some interesting e-mails, looks like the eagerness of some of your contributors to spread the warmth around, isn’t liked by some of others.
Perhaps a little more openness and candour with background data and less mounting of the high horse when “non-climatologists” raise questions may be the way to go in future?

26
Sir Oolius says:
20 November 2009 at 1:35 PM

no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research

Really? Oh darn…

From: George Soros
To: Al Gore ,fat@xxxxx.xxx, t.boone.pickens@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Socialist plan to take over the World
Date: Mon., 16 Nov 2009 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: w.buffett@xxx.xx.xx

Dear Al and T.,

After all this time and money spent, we can finally say that our view is aired consistently by the MSM. We now own The Washington Post editorial board (except for Will, who still insists on publishing the truth about AGW), and at the New York Times we just added Friedman to our payroll; but Rich and Kristof have been doing fairly well for us there. In short, climatofascism can now enter its next stage. With the help of the liberal noise machine at MSNBC and the blogs, we can now delude the rest of the American public into taking "action." Romm, Revkin, Dave Roberts, Zimmer are all fighting hard to keep the message fresh. We're a little concerned with Oolius at the moment. He might be going rogue in which case we'll have to terminate his contract. Otherwise we're in good shape. Once this catches on, we'll be making trillions of dollars in so-called "alternative" energy. I know you are, T-Bone, but Al, are you fully invested in this yet? I know you've been busy with your book cover, but it's really time *now* to leverage the equity in your mansion. [...]

44
Shoshin says:
20 November 2009 at 2:06 PM

It’s difficult to know at this stage whether any or all of the hacked and released data are real or fabricated. I guess the only way to know for sure and to re-establish confidence is for researchers to release their original data now and compare it to the hacked data. I find it offensive that some on this website somehow consider that the release of data to be inappropriate and that only certain climatologists are qualified to view it. Sounds like Scientology or Mormonism to me, not science.

52
Frank says:
20 November 2009 at 2:13 PM

To JACK KELLY:

It’s not about not wanting to fight a climate in peril. It’s about how it is spun to the public, and the intend that some people have with doing so…
You cannot deny that the climate debate and how to handle the future changes, have yielded big business for a few people.

The problem is, when bit money is added to the equation, the interest in doing something about the changes fast declines. The longer the idea of discussing is going on, the longer you can make the public pay irrational taxes, buy eco friendly gear, then get the “all new and better” model next year, because of course we didn’t have that on manufacturing belt already.

There’s no doubt in my mind that some or many of you so-called scientists report or feel responsible to certain people. But you have to remember who it is that pays grants and “owns” your institutions. All the way at the bottom (top?), you’ll find the public, and it is us you report to,
NOT the likes of Al Gore and friends.

You owe us the whole truth and we will have it… too bad that some hacker had to deliver it to us, when you actually had the chance yourselves.

Amount of trust and respect left now = 0

88
motionview says:
20 November 2009 at 3:00 PM

I’ve had a look at HARRY_READ_ME.txt . Forget the conspiracy, forget the emails: the software development and database management practices are atrocious. I’m sure their CS colleagues are mortified. You could not get a simple medical device on the market with that kind of software development, yet these results justify fundamentally changing the entire world economy?

91
Chip Knappenberger says:
20 November 2009 at 3:03 PM

I see a problem when it comes to suggesting that the “skeptics” need to publish in the peer-reviewed literature (which is something that I continually push as well), all the while working to try to prevent them publishing in the literature. I can pretty much guarantee that several recent papers that I (and co-authors) have submitted to the peer-reviewed literature would have been accepted had they carried different authorship. And I would bet that this is not only limited to my co-authors. I grow more suspicious that submitted papers that include particular authors are red-flagged for ‘special treatment.’ For a long time I denied (to myself and others) that this was the case, but recent experience has me thinking differently. I hope that I am wrong. Today’s information has done little to reassure me.

-Chip

Hackers target leading climate research unit

Researchers at CRU, one of the world's leading research bodies on natural and human-induced climate change, played a key role in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, which is considered to be the most authoritative report of its kind.

At first, said Dr. Michaels, the climatologist who has faulted some of the science of the global warming consensus, his instinct was to ignore the correspondence as “just the way scientists talk.”

But on Friday, he said that after reading more deeply, he felt that some exchanges reflected an effort to block the release of data for independent review.

He said some messages mused about discrediting him by challenging the veracity of his doctoral dissertation at the University of Wisconsin by claiming he knew his research was wrong. “This shows these are people willing to bend rules and go after other people’s reputations in very serious ways,” he said.

Spencer R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as “great material for historians.”

Options appear to be:

1. Send them the data
2. Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.
3. Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.

But there is an interesting twist here: grafting the thermometer onto a reconstruction is not actually the original “Mike’s Nature trick”! Mann did not fully graft the thermometer on a reconstruction, but he stopped the smoothed series in their end years. The trick is more sophisticated, and was uncovered by UC over here. (Note: Try not to click this link now, CA is overloaded. Can’t even get to it myself to mirror it. -A)

When smoothing these time series, the Team had a problem: actual reconstructions “diverge” from the instrumental series in the last part of 20th century. For instance, in the original hockey stick (ending 1980) the last 30-40 years of data points slightly downwards. In order to smooth those time series one needs to “pad” the series beyond the end time, and no matter what method one uses, this leads to a smoothed graph pointing downwards in the end whereas the smoothed instrumental series is pointing upwards — a divergence. So Mann’s solution was to use the instrumental record for padding, which changes the smoothed series to point upwards as clearly seen in UC’s figure (violet original, green without “Mike’s Nature trick”).

A Summary:

• Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)

• Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)

• Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709).

Analysis of impact here. Wow!

• Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as "cheering news".
• Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)

• Phil Jones says he has use Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series"...to hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)

• Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)

• Mann thinks he will contact BBC's Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)

• Kevin Trenberth says they can't account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can't.(1255352257)

• Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi's paper is crap.(1257532857)

• Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn't matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)

• Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he's "tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap" out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)

• Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to '"contain" the putative Medieval Warm Period'. (1054736277)

• Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)
• Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it's insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre's sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many "good" scientists condemn it.(1254756944)

• Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667)
• Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)

• Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)

• Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be "hiding behind them".(1106338806)

• Overpeck has no recollection of saying that he wanted to "get rid of the Medieval Warm Period". Thinks he may have been quoted out of context.(1206628118)

• Mann launches RealClimate to the scientific community.(1102687002)

• Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case).(1228330629)

• Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word things diplomatically.(1140554230)

• Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the "increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage" he produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems.(1024334440)

• Overpeck tells Team to write emails as if they would be made public. Discussion of what to do with McIntyre finding an error in Kaufman paper. Kaufman's admits error and wants to correct. Appears interested in Climate Audit findings.(1252164302)

• Jones calls Pielke Snr a prat.(1233249393)

• Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.(1237496573)

Finished in next post ...

Recommend Recommended by 25 Readers .127.wmarusaNovember 21st, 200911:29 amContinued from previous:

• Reaction to McIntyre's 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper's editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460)
[Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]

• Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)

• Jones says he's found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland.(1210367056)

• Wigley says Keenan's fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)

• Jones calls for Wahl and Ammann to try to change the received date on their alleged refutation of McIntyre [presumably so it can get into AR4](1189722851)

• Mann tells Jones that he is on board and that they are working towards a common goal.(0926010576)

• Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they shouldn't be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry they don't want in the hands of those who might distort it.(1059664704)

• Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of "apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data". [This appears to be the politics leading the science] Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124)

• Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)

• Mann tells Revkin that McIntyre is not to be trusted.(1254259645)

• Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684)

• Funkhouser says he's pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn't think it's productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.(0843161829)

• Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)
• Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.(1089318616)

• Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.(1255553034)

• Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.(1249503274)

• David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn't be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm.(1105019698)

• Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially he needs to put together a case to reject it (1054756929)

• Ben Santer, referring to McIntyre says he hopes Mr "I'm not entirely there in the head" will not be at the AGU.(1233249393)

• Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. Also discuss AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with sceptics.(1107454306)

Best Wishes

Fatal Error
If your blog does not display, please contact the owner of this site.

If you are the owner of this site please check that MySQL is running properly and all tables are error free.

Database Tables Missing.
Database tables are missing. This means that MySQL is either not running, WPMU was not installed properly, or someone deleted wp_site. You really should look at your database now.

What it also demonstrates – as my dear chum Dan Hannan so frequently and rightly argues – is the growing power of the Blogosphere and the decreasing relevance of the Mainstream Media (MSM).

This is not altogether the MSM’s fault. Partly it is just the way of things that more and more readers prefer their news and opinion served up in snappier, less reverent, more digestible and instant for.

But in the case of “Climate Change”, the MSM has been caught with its trousers down. The reason it has been so ill-equipped to report on this scandal is because almost all of its Environmental Correspondents and Environmental Editors are parti pris members of the Climate-Fear Promotion lobby. Most of their contacts (and information sources) work for biased lobby groups like Greenpeace and the WWF, or conspicuously pro-AGW government departments and Quangos such as the Carbon Trust. How can they bring themselves to report on skullduggery at Hadley Centre when the scientists involved are the very ones whose work they have done most to champion and whose pro-AGW views they share?

As Upton Sinclair once said:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”

Surprise, surprise. The MSM have turned a blind eye to what the hackers discovered. Instead, they have condemned their crime. BBC 10pm news led with the Cumbrian floods last night: another surprise.

The picture that emerges of prominent climate-change scientists from the more than 3,000 documents and emails accessed by hackers and put on the Internet this week is one of professional backbiting and questionable scientific practices. It could undermine the idea that the science of man-made global warming is entirely settled just weeks before a crucial climate-change summit.
...
A partial review of the emails shows that in many cases, climate scientists revealed that their own research wasn't always conclusive. In others, they discussed ways to paper over differences among themselves in order to present a "unified" view on climate change. On at least one occasion, climate scientists were asked to "beef up" conclusions about climate change and extreme weather events because environmental officials in one country were planning a "big public splash."

The release of the documents has given ammunition to many skeptics of man-made global warming, who for years have argued that the scientific "consensus" was less robust than the official IPCC summaries indicated and that climate researchers systematically ostracized other scientists who presented findings that differed from orthodox views.

Silly us. The invasion of Iraq and then the Health Care debate should have warned us that the Armies of the Right stop at nothing these days to impose their will and maintain their robber baron status, their dynasties. And so, like WMD and "Death Panels" now we have the "CRU email scandal", discussed earlier by Kevin Grandia. Just two weeks from Copenhagen the British Climate Research Unit computers are hacked, their emails downloaded and sent off into Deniaworld. There, just as in the lead up to the Iraq War, words are cherry picked, context removed, common sense abandoned, outrage simulated, war declared, counter views demonised. Vials of imaginary anthrax are displayed, trucks become mobile laboratories, aluminum tubes become nuclear bombs, rockets are ready to launch at New York in ten minutes.

And suddenly, it seems, temperatures are no longer rising, the Arctic is no longer melting, glaciers don't retreat, droughts don't happen, record temperatures are no longer set, marine acidity doesn't increase, sea levels don't rise, plants don't flower at different times, birds don't breed at different times, firestorms no longer erupt.

It seems no matter where you look, “hockey stick” shapes pop out of data related to climate. Today, the most extraordinary day in climate science seen in quite some time, was no exception.

And, the day is not over. But honestly I’m too tired to continue. Thus I’m going to present the dataset gleaned today in raw form, but without the final endpoint. There’s no smoothing nor splicing of dissimilar datasets, but granted it is not a complete dataset. I’ll have complete data tomorrow.

Readers will recognize that even though the endpoint has not been established, the conclusion from the graph is clear. We are living in times of extraordinary data, never before seen. It’s accelerating, and worse than we thought.

par5 (22:56:21) :

A hockey stick that we can all be proud of.

An anonymous statement accompanying the emails said: “We feel that climate science is too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.”

One of the emails under scrutiny, dated November 1999, reads: "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Scientists who are alleged to be the authors of the emails in question have declined to comment on the matter.

703
Janet says:
21 November 2009 at 7:41 PM

I’m the daughter of scientist you all sharply criticized, discredited, and claimed his theories were washed up a few years back on this site, and I just want you to know your pain at the moment is my pleasure.

[Response: Sorry if we caused you any problem, but whether a scientific idea is valid or not is not a reflection on the quality of the person who proposed it. I would advise you to take scientific criticism less personally. - gavin]

709
Julius Philips says:
21 November 2009 at 7:54 PM

I have been doing a lot of research with algae. I can tell you that lately (as in last 12 years) there has been an explosion of algae around the world. It counters any extra Co2 production.

Hopefully, the scientist is more interested in discovering how nature really works, rather than twisting the data to support some other agenda. It took me years to develop the discipline to question every research result I got. It is really easy to be wrong in this business, and very difficult to be right.

Skepticism really is at the core of scientific progress. I’m willing to admit that I could be wrong about all my views on manmade global warming. Can the IPCC scientists admit the same thing?

Year after year, the evidence keeps mounting that most climate research now being funded is for the purpose of supporting the IPCC’s politics, not to find out how nature works. The ‘data spin’ is increasingly difficult to ignore or to explain away as just sloppy science. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…

But it’s actually the second document (potential-funding.doc) that tells the more compelling tale. In addition to four government sources of potential CRU funding, it lists an equal number of “energy agencies” they might put the bite on. Three -- the Carbon Trust, the Northern Energy Initiative and the Energy Saving Trust -- are UK-based consultancy and funding specialists promoting “new energy” technologies with the goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The fourth -- Renewables North West -- is an American company promoting the expansion of solar, wind and geothermal energy in the Pacific Northwest.

Needless to say, all four of these CRU “potential funding sources” have an undeniably intrinsic financial interest in the promotion of the carbochondriacal reports CRU is ready, willing, and able to dish out ostensibly on-demand. And equally obvious is that Jones is all too aware that a renewable energy-funded CRU will remain the world’s premiere authority on the subject of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) despite any appearance of conflict.

And yet, no such latitude has ever been extended to scientists in the skeptical camp.

For instance, when MIT’s Richard Lindzen delivers one of his trademark brilliant presentations leading to the conclusion that climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is about 0.5°C, not the 1.5°-5°C predicted by IPCC models, all we hear from alarmists and complicit media types is that the professor once charged oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services and is therefore an unreliable big-oil hack.

Almost all the data we have in the CRU archive is exactly the same
as in the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) archive used
by the NOAA National Climatic Data Center [see here
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php and here http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ghcn/ghcngrid.html ].

The original raw data are not “lost.” I could reconstruct what we had from U.S. Department of Energy reports we published in the mid-1980s. I would start with the GHCN data. I know that the effort would be a complete waste of time, though. I may get around to it some time.

So again we have confirmation that the Hadley input is substantially the same GHCN input data as for GIStemp. And as we’ve seen, there are strong biases built into the GHCN data set and it’s changes over time.

dearieme

Christ on a bicycle. I’ve known intellectually that it was all tosh, but it’s quite another thing to see the trail of tears as poor Harry tries to pump life into the corpse.

In an embarrassing blow to the movement to combat global warming, hackers have posted hundreds of e-mails from a world-renowned British institute that show researchers colluding to exaggerate warming and undermine skeptics.

LONDON — A leading climate change scientist whose private e-mails are included in thousands of documents that were stolen by hackers and posted online said Sunday the leaks may have been aimed at undermining next month's global climate summit in Denmark.

Kevin Trenberth, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Colorado, said he believes the hackers who stole a decade's worth of correspondence from a British university's computer server deliberately distributed only those documents that could help attempts by skeptics to undermine the scientific consensus on man-made climate change.