Pheesiks? We don’t need no steenkin’ pheesiks!

With apologies to The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, here’s a a comment worth repeating from the Hit and Misses thread.

What I find interesting about the entire email corpus is the focus on the minutia of the statistics and the different proxies. In none of the emails from the core team members do we see any physics of radiation. It seems that if it were your role to “prove” the positive feedback of CO2 you would want to actually do some physics of radiative and convective transfer of energy in the atmosphere. This is where the rubber meets the road.

It seems that the entire consensus group have taken an assumption (positive feedback of CO2 increase) and are going deeper and deeper into the details of the proxies in order to show what the results of their assumption are.

I think that this is why as a discipline, more and more physicists are dismissing AGW.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climategate, Humor, Satire, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

220 Responses to Pheesiks? We don’t need no steenkin’ pheesiks!

  1. Dude, this is a group of people who study paleoclimates, what did you expect? I expect that you would have had a lot more discussion of physics if the emails of a modeling group had been stolen.

  2. crosspatch says:

    Given an atmosphere of infinite thickness …

  3. Sean Peake says:

    Love the peekture

  4. Joe Ryan says:

    This is where I point out that they have trouble with Excel.

  5. pat says:

    o/t but the MSM’s refusal to expose the public to the contents of Climategate II emails is nothing short of a disgrace:

    25 Nov: UK Telegraph: Geoffrey Lean: Climategate II: the scientists fight back
    The first Climategate made scientists dive for cover, refusing to comment. This time, they held a press conference.
    Yet the public response seems to have been nothing more than a yawn. The emails dropped out of the news within a couple of days. And Google’s record of trends for searches and news coverage of Climategate, which went through the roof two years ago have scarcely registered a blip…
    And the science itself remains sound, based on a wide variety of sources and studies and so far not invalidated by anything that has emerged from either Climategate…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/8915689/Climategate-II-the-scientists-fight-back.html

    btw if u open the Telegraph link, u will find a pic with the caption:

    More signs of a warming planet? The vanishing glaciers of the Himalayas Photo: EPA

    truly mindboggling…

  6. Deekaman says:

    Dude…I expect some basic science with the study of paleoclimate…like, “does this meet the bounds of physics?”

  7. kim2ooo says:

    Who is that picture of?

    Mr Mann – Mr Schmidt – Mr Black???

  8. GeologyJim says:

    There’s also no discussion of what the alleged “warming” means and what might be causing it. Nor any admission that the CO2-LWR radiation effect is logarithmic and declining with each additional increment.

    No, the entire focus of this paleoclimate reconstruction group is clearly to show that “something” indicates “unprecedented” warming.

    Not the slightest curiosity about what part is attributable to multidecadal processes (ENSO, AO, PDO, AMO, solar radiation, etc.), volcanoes, land-use change, yadda, yadda, yadda.

    But, of course, the real focus is to “make the MWP disappear” so that “unprecedented” can be established in the last 1000 years. As if that period had any real meaning.

    Snake-oil salesmen, one and all.

  9. Smokey says:

    GeologyJim’s got it right. The trend from the LIA hasn’t changed, and it appears to be influenced not by CO2, but by the AMO.

  10. kim2ooo says:

    pat says:
    November 26, 2011 at 6:13 pm

    ………………….

    I judge how well the interview came across – by the comments :)

  11. Jimbo says:

    The Calamatologist, Dr. Phil Jones, might soon join the AGW dismissing physicists.

    “Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds.”
    http://junkscience.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/

  12. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Rattus Norvegicus says:
    November 26, 2011 at 6:04 pm

    There is still no proof that any e-mails were stolen from anyone.

  13. Jessie says:

    I have a question please.

    Last night I went to the site linked from WUWT (& Jo Nova) that provides a database on the email (1&2) and also read some replies from the author of this searchable d/base to requests from J Nova’s readers.
    The author, who I was able to read about him last night on his website, but not now, does not hold the Lavoisier Group (Australia) in high regard. http://www.lavoisier.com.au/index.php

    Unless I am confusing the searchable d/bases Q: Why is this?

    The one green tree on EcoGuy’s searchable d/base website seems to be an iconic image used elsewhere.

  14. crosspatch says:

    Jimbo says:
    November 26, 2011 at 6:33 pm

    Now that Hulme has started the walking back, I expect Jones to follow.

  15. Smokey says:

    Jimmy Haigh says:

    “There is still no proof that any e-mails were stolen from anyone.”

    There’s not even a bit of evidence, much less any proof.

    It’s prety clear that the whistleblower didn’t leak every email in Climategate 1.0 [like a common hacker would]. No doubt he withheld any emails that might identify him. Or maybe he held back some seriously illegal emails for personal protection, blackmailing others to keep them quiet.

    Besides, what was “stolen”? Is anything missing? Or did the taxpaying public simply get to see some of what they paid for?

  16. dp says:

    Kim2000:

    Who is that picture of?

    Mr Mann – Mr Schmidt – Mr Black???

    The Mann of La Bristle Cone.

  17. kim2ooo says:

    Rattus Norvegicus says:
    November 26, 2011 at 6:04 pm

    Dude, this is a group of people who study paleoclimates, what did you expect? I expect that you would have had a lot more discussion of physics if the emails of a modeling group had been stolen. ” ]

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Soooooooo…. Paleontology – ” paleoclimates” doesn’t / don’t need /require physics? AND modelers do?

    I think you have this bassaskwards :)

  18. DocMartyn says:

    With the passphrase protected data, could you have password protected folders within password protected folder?
    Think of it like an advent calendar, were someone supplies a password every now and again.

  19. Thanks Anthony, there go any future contracts for me……

    :)

    I have spent most of my Thanksgiving holiday reading the Climategate II emails and the lack of experimental physics is what has struck me the most about what I have read. Your retort may be that these guys are paleoclimatologists so what else would they be studying. The problem is that they are not simply paleoclimatologists, they are writing entire chapters of the IPCC reports on climate, which they then use as “proof” of warming when journalists ask them about controversies generated by the skeptic community. These guys are leading the consensus of climate scientists around the world in the pro-AGW world and there is not one single experimental physicist among them!

    I have been very fortunate in my career to have worked both the scientific end and the engineering end of science. In the 1990’s as a student one of our payloads was a camera that would have measured the knee of the absorption curves (the 3db point) of gasses such as water vapor in the atmosphere. We set up a dual path experiment whereby scientists at the NASA Marshall Spaceflight center would use a spectrometer to measure the incoming wavelengths while our camera would look at the MSFC site to get the outgoing measurement. This would set up a bi-directional path to measure the extinction coefficients for water vapor absorption of energy in selected bands in the visible spectrum.

    If I wanted to “prove” AGW, there are ways to do it today and do it experimentally. Why are these experiments not being undertaken? The USAF in the 1940’s and 1950’s literally drove the technology of infrared and visible spectrometers in their famous “upper atmospheric research” flights in B29’s and other jets during that period. They took increasingly detailed spectrograms, down to where they could eventually measure the gaussian of an individual CO2 absorption feature at different altitudes. Now I am given to understand that this data has been incorporated into MODTRAN and other codes, but why not go back to the original data, then do a similar set of experiments today and measure how the gaussian (or Lorentz depending on whether or not the line is saturated) function has changed for CO2.

    Now on Realclimate and in some papers I have read where if the CO2 concentrations increase, the altitude of the CO2 line desaturation increases, and thus temperatures should increase in the atmosphere up to that point. Now Christy, Spencer and others have not seen this increase in the satellite data but we have the technology today to measure the altitudes where this desaturation occurs and determine (by going back into the history files to the USAF studies) to see if there are any definitive changes from the atmosphere as they recorded it in the 1950’s. I did read one paper where Nimbus IV IRIG sensor was measured against a recent (1998) mission but after digging into it the error bars were so large as to make the results meaningless.

    We now have inexpensive LCD tunable filters that are capable of wavelength resolution down to the 0.1 nanometer scale. We could easily fly one of those on the ISS using the downward facing scientific window designed for this purpose and do an experiment and get results of far better quantitive and qualitative value than our simple student experiment of the 1990’s.

    We could repeat the USAF studies using a similar filter to get qualitative data on exactly what altitude does CO2 principle line desaturation happens. The physics text books on quantum mechanical optics provides all of the theoretical basis for determining the temperature and pressure coefficients for when this should occur (indeed these formulas were derived from the USAF studies!).

    It was John Christy and his interest in old satellite data that got me interested in this subject when I worked down the hall from him in 1988 at UAH. Today we have far too much computer modeling and far too little experimental physics, which is where this should be decided, not in the bit splicing of proxies a thousand years old that frankly seems, especially after reading the climategate II emails, much like the world of alchemists a thousand years ago, getting money from the King to research how to turn lead into gold, or in this case, how to influence the development of a global civilization.

    Climate science is far too important to our future to leave it in the hands of climate scientists, its time to bring in the adults, the experimental physicists who can give real answers.

  20. kim2ooo says:

    dp says:
    November 26, 2011 at 6:51 pm………..
    The Mann of La Bristle Cone.” ]

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Ahhhh a “desperado” :)

  21. David Ball says:

    Rattus Norvegicus says:
    November 26, 2011 at 6:04 pm

    And that would be computer wizards not physicists, try again, ……..

  22. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    I would not have described the manipulators of the temperature records as a group of paloeclimate researchers, though some of them may have done that too. The public output of substance from the CRU is processed temperatures series, flogged as proof that man-made emissons of CO2 are strongly affecting temperatures, amplified by compliant and apparently, based on the Climategate 2 files, co-conspiratorial media.

    It is patently obvious from three perspectives that they do not believe the AGW meme themselves: the way they try to prevent people from seeing how they derive their ‘outputs’, the way they speak to each other expressing what appear to be perfectly genuine unease that they will get caught misrepresenting natural variation as man-made, and lastly, the patently unscientific manner in which they interact in public places such as R/C and SkS with scientists who call them out for their inadequacies, misrepresentations, errors, lack of compliance with publishing standards, misunderstandings and misbehaviour.

    The ‘Team’ is not into paleoclimates, they are into protecting their income and grants, their positions in the UN/IPCC AGW promoting processes and their reputations as ‘processors of the globe’s temperature data’.

    All this is shown by their private and public behaviour. To me it seems the emails were stolen and also that they are legitimately supposed to be obtainable using the FOIA which they conspired to evade (not ‘avoid’ which as a very different legal implication).

    The sum of evidence shows some interesting things. They were probably not doing much at all to the incoming temperature data, by which I mean they were charging for things not done – somewhat like not emitting CO2 and being paid for it. They were at pains to hide this fact. The data was processed in meaningless ways using defective programmes they threw together and did not understand and which were seamfully (as opposed to seamlessly) stitched together to give an ever-rising global temperature trend. That their work at the CRU was useless is not really the main point. It is rather, the deliberate hiding, suppression and where possible vilification of information and sources that contradicted their pre-supposed conclusions. Having no meaningful reply to legitimate, well-earned, valid and biting criticism of their collected works, we see in private and public a wholesale resorting to schoolyard bullying encouraging others to ‘pile on the rabbit’ – rabbits of their careful choice (so as not to raise too much notice).

    What an extraordinary waste of time and public money. I think we deserve better than that.

    Solution? Easy. Cut…..off…..the…..money. Stop giving them contracts. Stop publishing crap science without data and methods. Stop making it worth their while to get out of bed in the morning to lift a hand against those who are are willing to follow the scientific method without fear, favour or pre-conception.

  23. davidmhoffer says:

    Jimmy Haigh says:
    November 26, 2011 at 6:39 pm
    Rattus Norvegicus says:
    November 26, 2011 at 6:04 pm
    There is still no proof that any e-mails were stolen from anyone>>>

    Sorry folks, but this is a red herring. The answer I use is this:

    Rattus, I don’t care if the emails were stolen, found in a dumpster, or just fell out of the sky. The only things I care about are if a) they are authentic and b) what they say. Given no one has stuck up their hand and claimed the emails were forged, we can move on to what they say.

    So Rattus, do you have what it takes to discuss what they say? Or shall you just whine like a petulant child that it isn’t fair that the emails are now public knowledge?

  24. rk says:

    part of the problem is that the physics has been ‘settled’ for years…and now the only problem is to educate, persuade people and policy makers what the issue is. For example, train people in climate change using software like this:

    http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/projects/cmip/cmip_abstracts/wigley03.pdf

    Mike Hulme was starting this in 97

    “We too here have plans to exploit SCENGEN (and MAGICC) in a
    training/educational context. I ran a pilot seminar here for UNEP before
    Christmas on scenario construction, although this was using the new
    WINDOWS/Unix versions of both MAGICC and SCENGEN (MAGICC 2 and SCENGEN 2;
    IPCC 1995 compatible) we have re-written. Also, I have just submitted a
    proposal (called SPARCCS) to ENRICH in DGXII for a support package for
    regional climate change scenarios. This would be a 2-year project with
    emissions people, as well as MAGICC, SCENGEN and our new global historic
    climatology. I think we have a good chance of funding.”

    0853426848.txt

    The paleo stuff was a late comer, but was icing on the cake….or so they thought

  25. Tom Davidson says:

    CO2 absorbs energy from all directions, and re-radiates that energy in all directions. The main difference between CO2 and other gases, besides the absorption spectrum, is that CO2 has a slightly higher specific heat than the other components of air. Physically this means that it takes MORE energy to raise the temperature of the air a given amount if more CO2 is present.
    In planetary physics this makes CO2 a (mild) form of thermal ballast, reducing fluctuations.
    ‘Greenhouse’ gases only work in greenhouses – structures designed to inhibit convection.

  26. kim2ooo says:

    Crispin in Waterloo says:
    November 26, 2011 at 7:09 pm
    ………….the patently unscientific manner in which they interact in public places such as R/C and SkS with scientists who call them out for their inadequacies, misrepresentations, errors, lack of compliance with publishing standards, misunderstandings and misbehaviour.”

    R/C and SkS is somewhat akin to watching a Chinese movie – with ill fitting voice-overs and captions.

  27. davidmhoffer says:

    Rattus Norvegicus says:
    November 26, 2011 at 6:04 pm
    Dude, this is a group of people who study paleoclimates, what did you expect?>>>

    Right on dude! Tell it like it is brother!
    They’ve studied tree rings, reconstructed the climate of the last thousand years from them, deleted those periods in time when the tree rings didn’t show what they thought it should, agreed that data should be kept “well hidden”, agreed to “hide the decline”, and that 12 trees from Siberia represented the temperature of the entire globe over the last 1000 years. Oh, I forgot to mention the graphics program that sorts through climate data and weights the various data differently until it produces a hockey stick, and the agreement to “get rid” of the MWP.

    Obviously all that produced results that clearly indicate that increased CO2 is warming the planet. No doubt about it. The logic chain is clear and precise. Thanks for pointing that out Rattus.

  28. Robert Austin says:

    Rattus Norvegicus says:
    November 26, 2011 at 6:04 pm

    I agree with Rattus that these guys are paleos, dendros etc. and the actual physics of climate are outside of their purview and expertise. Unfortunately, the most notorious of these paleos are so disconnected from physical reality that they do not consider the need for a temperature proxy to have some basis in physical reality. Hence the upside down Tiljander episode, the bristlecone pines, the Yamal “one tree to rule them all” and the divergence problem plus lesser travesties. In other words, if there existed a correlation between church of England attendance and the temperature record over a cherry picked calibration period, they could not resist including it in their reconstructions. Just hide the verification statistics and you are golden.

  29. I swear by Gropthar’s Hammer that I got this email from the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) after this thread started.

    Colleagues,

    The next Enterprise Chapter meeting is the last week of November and features a “hard core” scientist presenting his original analyses and findings concerning global warming. He has just published a book on these issues, now available through Amazon.
    Note the meeting location is at Microcosm, Inc., in Hawthorne — see below left for location link.
    If you wish to attend, please click on LINK Interested in Meeting below left and send e-mail with your name.

    NEXT PRESENTATION

    No CO2 Required
    Sun, Wind and Water Need No Help from CO2 to Set the Earth’s Climate

    The global warming ‘debate’ has become detached from its foundations in physical science and degenerated into an argument over belief in empirical pseudoscience. The observed increase of 100 parts per million in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration since the start of the industrial revolution has had no effect on the Earth’s climate. This follows from an analysis of the time dependence of the climate energy transfer. The local surface temperature is always changing on both a daily and a seasonal time frame in response to changes in the total surface energy flux balance and local weather patterns.
    The Earth has been warming gradually since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 18th century. There has been no increase in ‘extreme’ climate events. Sea level and polar ice extent are behaving normally. Hurricanes are near an all time low. The dynamic nature of the greenhouse effect has been conveniently ignored by many climate ‘scientists’. Their models assume a fictional average climate equilibrium state that can be perturbed using a technique known as radiative forcing. The result has been scientific fraud on an unprecedented scale.
    Over a trillion dollars has been wasted on research to save the planet from a non-existent problem. The peer review process in climate science has collapsed and been replaced by flagrant cronyism. The large scale climate models have been fraudulently ‘hard wired’ to create global warming. Once this is understood, then the whole pseudoscientific façade of forcings and feedbacks and climate sensitivity factors collapses. A doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration can have no effect on climate. Sun, wind and water need no help from CO2 to set the Earth’s climate.

    Speaker Bio

    Dr. Roy Clark is President and Founder of Ventura Photonics. His over 30 years experience includes optical and spectroscopic sensors, combustion and laser diagnostics, and non imaging optics for illumination and solar concentrators, emphasizing product and process development for adverse environments. He holds 8 US patents. Past positions were with various aerospace and technology companies in S. California.
    With publication of the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Roy began to study climate change. He could not find a quantitative explanation of carbon dioxide induced global warming. Through original analysis, he discovered that it is impossible for the resulting 1.7 W.m-2 increase in the downward infra red flux from a 100 ppm increase in carbon dioxide concentration to cause any climate change. He has now published a new book that summarizes this research: The Dynamic Greenhouse Effect and the Climate Averaging Paradox.

  30. Mac the Knife says:

    Dennis Ray Wingo says:
    November 26, 2011 at 6:57 pm
    “We now have inexpensive LCD tunable filters that are capable of wavelength resolution down to the 0.1 nanometer scale. We could easily fly one of those on the ISS using the downward facing scientific window designed for this purpose and do an experiment and get results of far better quantitive and qualitative value than our simple student experiment of the 1990′s.”

    What would the hardware package for this device cost? What would it cost to get it built, debugged, added to an ISS resupply launch and get it installed and operational on the down looking window?

    Thank you for the interesting perspectives!

  31. Jean Parisot says:

    I have submitted several experiments for consideration that would measure specific model parameters, no USAF interest. No one wants to open Pandora’s box.

  32. Ian W says:

    Tom Davidson says:
    November 26, 2011 at 7:20 pm
    CO2 absorbs energy from all directions, and re-radiates that energy in all directions. The main difference between CO2 and other gases, besides the absorption spectrum, is that CO2 has a slightly higher specific heat than the other components of air. Physically this means that it takes MORE energy to raise the temperature of the air a given amount if more CO2 is present.
    In planetary physics this makes CO2 a (mild) form of thermal ballast, reducing fluctuations.
    ‘Greenhouse’ gases only work in greenhouses – structures designed to inhibit convection.

    To that you have to add that as water vapor (feedback?) increases as a percentage of a volume of air so the enthalpy of that volume increases. So the heat energy required to raise that volume of air increases by up to ~10 times. BOTH ‘green house gases’ therefore make it more difficult to raise the atmospheric temperature as their concentration increases.

    This is why it is a data-type error to measure atmospheric temperature and use it to quantify atmospheric heat content.

  33. Jean Parisot says:

    Mac, alot of spectral studies were done using balloons to reduce cost. My guess would be that updwelling spectral data collected against a deep space background would be better then trying to deal with the down dwelling issues.

  34. G. Karst says:

    Dennis Ray Wingo says:
    November 26, 2011 at 6:57 pm

    …Today we have far too much computer modeling and far too little experimental physics…

    Actually, the experimental physics to AGW, are made available to us, by the most excellent lab team of Al Gore and Bill Nye. The data produced… robust.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/18/replicating-al-gores-climate-101-video-experiment-shows-that-his-high-school-physics-could-never-work-as-advertised/

    Perhaps you should discuss your proposal with them? ;) GK

  35. crosspatch says:

    No one wants to open Pandora’s box.

    There’s no butter on that side of the bread. You will need to present the experiment in such a way as it looks to be a shoo-in to validate AGW. You position it that way in order to get the funding, pretend that you are out to validate the hypothesis and then once it is done, publish what the data show.

  36. Theo Goodwin says:

    The Team practiced no physical science at all and they do not to this day. What they did is select some types of tree rings because they had been used in the past as proxies for temperature. In the past, the selections had not been justified in accordance with scientific method and The Team did nothing to justify them.

    “Hide the decline” is the clearest case of this failure to do physical science. They discovered that after 1960 their readings from some kinds of tree rings began to diverge from past readings and from thermometer measurements. At this point, physical scientists would have asked what caused the divergence. Not The Team. They hid the divergence.

    Physical scientists would have done empirical research to discover the physical laws that govern tree ring formation in the environments studied and would have used those laws to explain the tree ring divergence from 1960 to 2000. Not The Team. Briffa published an article or two around the year 2000 and explained that he had no idea why the tree rings changed. To this day, there is no article that explains the changes in accordance with scientific method. (Rumor has it that Briffa is working on one – just ten years late.) The Team was never interested in such matters. The Team has always been interested in nothing but finding strings of numbers associated with some natural proxy for temperature and using those strings to support the claim of rising temperatures. There is not one of them that has the instincts of a genuine scientist. Having forty years of divergent data, a genuine scientist would have said “This is our big discovery and this is what we must publish, namely, that tree rings are worthless as proxies for temperature.”

    There are in Climategate 2 some emails from prominent scientists explaining to members of The Team that what they are doing is not science. Professor Daly is most prominent among these. He tells The Team pretty much what I have said here and he admonishes them that they should try to embrace the scientific method. Of course, Team members are livid at such a put down even though it is spot on.

    Jeff Id has done some excellent work on his website addressing other articles in which The Team showed the same poor judgement that they showed in the “hide the decline” matter. I highly recommend that you visit Id’s site and put yourself through his highly depressing but enlightening account of just how unscientific The Team was in its practices. This is all new material not found in Climategate 1.

    Some say that Climategate 2 is a yawn. BS. It is crammed with context and detail that surpass “hide the decline” in all ways.

  37. jorgekafkazar says:

    Perhaps the paucity of physical content is due to the political nature of the “debate.” Any actual science was not put in emails, but quietly passed from cubicle to cubicle in plain manila envelopes.

  38. Deekaman says:
    November 26, 2011 at 6:14 pm

    Dude…I expect some basic science with the study of paleoclimate…like, “does this meet the bounds of physics?”
    ################################

    paleo climate does in fact help us constrain the boundaries of the ECR.

    See the LGM

    Shorter term paleo, say the MWP, doesnt help to constrain the ECR, at least at the current level of understanding.

    Rattus is correct, largely.

    However if you look in the first batch of mails from a fellow named Rind Or if you grep
    Judith Lean you will find things of note.

    Read people.

  39. David Ball says:

    Dennis Ray Wingo says:
    November 26, 2011 at 7:28 pm
    Apparently you CAN form a rudimentary lathe, ……… 8^D Great movie and great post

  40. Werner Brozek says:

    “GeologyJim says:
    November 26, 2011 at 6:23 pm
    Not the slightest curiosity about what part is attributable to multidecadal processes (ENSO, AO, PDO, AMO, solar radiation, etc.)”

    There actually was some curiosity and even trepidation about this. The following is from 1682:

    “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural
    fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably…”

  41. Theo Goodwin says:

    Smokey says:
    November 26, 2011 at 6:48 pm

    If everyone will read the emails carefully I think you will come to agree with me that Briffa is a likely candidate to be the whistle blower. (Though the whistle blower is most likely a team, given the skills possessed.) No, I have no proof but permit me to explain my hunch.

    In the emails, 1 and 2, Briffa is treated very badly and is the only member of The Team who is treated very badly. In more than one article, Briffa’s work on data is replaced by truly shoddy work over Briffa’s protests. Time and again, Briffa protests that the claims made by The Team go beyond anything that can be justified by the data. Remember that Briffa is the chief data collector.

    Go to Jeff Id’s site and read about that The Team putting together an article in which they once again throw Briffa overboard for more Exciting but far less reliable data. The detail is wonderful. The story is devastating to The Team.

  42. Theo Goodwin says:

    Sean Peake says:
    November 26, 2011 at 6:11 pm

    So, Michael Mann’s father or grandfather was an actor. Who knew?

  43. davidmhoffer says:

    Steven Mosher;
    paleo climate does in fact help us constrain the boundaries of the ECR.
    See the LGM
    Shorter term paleo, say the MWP, doesnt help to constrain the ECR, at least at the current level of understanding.>>>

    Mosher that’s a little bit better than your usual drive by snark remarks about skeptics not being skeptical, but of what use is it? What does ECR stand for? What does LGM stand for? We’re supposed to google search the acronyms you use to figure out what they heck you’re talking about? Bottom line is that the paleo studies have been held up as “proof” of AGW, but the only thing that paleo studies can POSSIBLY show is how the temperature of the planet has been changing. Even IF the studies are correct, that says NOTHING about CO2’s effect on the temperatures.

    Steven Mosher;
    Rattus is correct, largely.>>>

    Bull. He’s trying to hijack the thread by making the desperate claim that the emails were stolen and hence mean nothing. He adds to that bullsh*t by claiming that since they are paleo scientists, there’s no reason for them to be talking physics. Double bull sh*t. They’ve held up their studies as “proof” of AGW without a single solitary study linking their results to the effects of CO2. They might as well have studied pebbles on a beach and announced them as proof that CO2 is warming the planet. TRIPLE BULL SH*T!

    Steven Mosher;
    However if you look in the first batch of mails from a fellow named Rind Or if you grep
    Judith Lean you will find things of note.>>>

    Nice. Now you are arguing from authority but don’t have the decency to post a link, or take a few moments to explain what it is you are talking about and why it is important? We’re supposed to google ad naseum until we find the specific emails that you have in mind? How do we know that when we come across something of “note” that it is the same thing of “note” that you are talking about? Or are you just gambling that some of the readers of this thread will accept that your comment is relevant and credible because you said it was? Are you trying to get a job at the CRU?

    Sorry I bought your book. I want my money back.

  44. artwest says:

    Mac the Knife says:
    November 26, 2011 at 7:41 pm
    “What would the hardware package for this device cost? What would it cost to get it built, debugged, added to an ISS resupply launch and get it installed and operational on the down looking window?”
    ———————————————————–

    I’d suspect a hell of a lot less than is p*ssed away by most developed economies in a single hour due to CAGW scaremongering.

  45. Werner Brozek says:

    “Ian W says:
    November 26, 2011 at 7:57 pm
    To that you have to add that as water vapor (feedback?) increases as a percentage of a volume of air so the enthalpy of that volume increases. So the heat energy required to raise that volume of air increases by up to ~10 times.”

    This is too high. The percent water vapor in the atmosphere can vary from close to 0% to about 4%. The specific heat capacity of air is 1.0. Let us assume the specific heat capacity of water vapor is 2.0. So if the air has 4% water vapor, the average specific heat capacity is 1.04. I know the molar mass of water is 18 and not 29, but if we just assume they are the same, then the mass of the atmosphere with 4% water vapor is 4% larger than if there is 0% water vapor. (I am also generously assuming water vapor exists evenly throughout the atmosphere and does not condense out.) Then applying mct(moist air) = mct(dry air), we find that the mc for the moist air is 8% larger than for dry air. So to balance things out, the dry air has to have a temperature change that is 8% larger than the moist air. In other words, if moist air goes up by 1.00 degrees C, the dry air, with the same energy input, would go up by 1.08 degrees C. So unless I am missing something, I would say the difference is 8% at the most.

  46. davidmhoffer says:

    Theo Goodwin says:
    November 26, 2011 at 8:15 pm
    Smokey says:
    November 26, 2011 at 6:48 pm
    If everyone will read the emails carefully I think you will come to agree with me that Briffa is a likely candidate to be the whistle blower. (Though the whistle blower is most likely a team, given the skills possessed.) >>>

    That’s probably the first “whodunit” theory I’ve seen that actually makes some logical sense! I’ve had this nagging feeling that someone on “the team” has quietly switched sides for a while now.

    On the lighter side, my vote for whistle blower goes to Michael Mann. He’s running out of excuses and legal manouevering room. I’m waiting for him to announce that he is the whistle blower, and everything he did was to help out the human race by exposing the scoundrels, and he should be exonorated as a result.

    Hmmmm…. I don’t actually think he’s the whistle blower, but wouldn’t it be a hoot if he tried that argument? Given the absurdity of the rest of his excuses, he might just try a stunt like that!

  47. bananabender says:

    The most basic premise of “climate science” – that the Earth is heated 33K by the atmosphere – is totally wrong. This value is derived by assuming that the Earth is flat disc with uniform albedo that receives uniform insolation.

    In reality the Earth is an oblate spheroid that receives 1340W/m2 solar Top of Atmosphere radiation at the Equator and 0W/m2 at the poles. The surface temperature varies by as much as a massive 149K (-88C to 61C). The albedo varies from 0.05 (water) to 0.85 (fresh snow).

  48. crosspatch says:

    Briffa is a likely candidate to be the whistle blower.

    I wouldn’t go that far. But I will say that Briffa has my respect and is one of the few in all of this that seems to posses some scruples. Briffa might have been an influence but I don’t think he did it. Maybe he did, though, no idea. My guess is that it had to be done by an IT staffer or with the assistance of one. I would hope one had to have “root” access in order to obtain these files but I have seen mistakes where all users were placed in a “mail” group of a Unix server that held a mail store owned by “mail” user and “mail” group with group read/write privs. I also believe the trail isn’t completely electronic. I don’t think they will ever find an electronic trail of how the data got from point A to point B. I believe it was likely carried by hand at least a portion of the way.

    My prediction for posterity is that the real story, if it ever comes out, will shock and amaze.

  49. crosspatch says:

    davidmhoffer:

    LGM = Little green men
    EGM = Enormous green men.

    Hope that helps. Sometimes things in climate science move at a rather glacial pace.

  50. newtlove says:

    As the Lawyers say: “If you have the law, argue the law. If you don’t have the law, but have some facts, argue those. If you neither, obstruct and litigate until the other side wears down and caves.”

    So, the alarmist AGW crowd has no physical law, they want to argue statistics, and knowing that tact is “thin ice,” they have become extremely proficient with obstructing and litigating.”

  51. David Ball says:

    Wish there was an ego or condescension filter on WUWT. Wouldn’t that be nice?

    [REPLY: It would need to have a check box to exclude moderators. -REP]

  52. Mac the Knife says:

    Jean Parisot says:
    November 26, 2011 at 7:59 pm
    “Mac, alot of spectral studies were done using balloons to reduce cost. My guess would be that updwelling spectral data collected against a deep space background would be better then trying to deal with the down dwelling issues.”

    Hi Jean!
    My questions for you are similar to those for Dr. Wingo.:
    What would the hardware package for this device cost and how many devices would be needed? If they are flown on high altitude balloons, how many flights at how many different locations around the world would be needed? What would the average flight cost? What logistical support cost?
    How could we ‘dress it up to look like an AGW support package to secure funding from our own taxpayer funds, then make damn sure the data and analyses were unadultered reported honestly?

  53. davidmhoffer says:

    Mosher;

    Here’s a much simplified (but reasonably accurate) portrayel of the “paleo science” without no steenkin’ feesisks.

    1. I find a tree that started growing in 1800 AD and by 1850 AD it was 25 feet tall.
    2. I find another tree that started growing in 1850, and by 1900 it was 30 feet tall.
    3. I find a third tree that started growing in 1900, and by 1950, it was 35 feet tall.

    This is proof that the earth is warming as a result of CO2 emissions.

    4. I find a fourth tree that started growing in 1950, and by 2000, it was 25 feet tall.

    This is proof that tree growth ceased responding to temperature in 1950, and that the earth is warming as a result of CO2 emissions.

    Feesiks? We donneed no steenkin’ feesiks.

  54. David Ball says:

    To avoid being cryptic, I’m looking at you Mosher.

  55. Theo Goodwin says:

    The lastest on Briffa is in an essay by Steve McIntyre at his site:

    http://climateaudit.org/2011/11/25/behind-closed-doors-perpetuating-rubbish

  56. Theo Goodwin says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    November 26, 2011 at 8:40 pm

    Your observations of human nature are spot on. People on The Team are hardcore and play hardcore. That one or more of them has created an “out” for himself by posting Climategate 1 and 2 makes a lot of sense for this kind of personality. However, I think Briffa is a special case for the two reasons that he was treated badly over a long period of time and he objected to The Team’s excesses over a long period of time. Of course, he also fully embraced what The Team was doing. That is how hardcore people are.

    One thing is certain. The person who put together Climategate 1 and 2 had a participant’s knowledge of those emails. Two continues One all too well for it to be the work of a computer programmer.

  57. Theo Goodwin says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    November 26, 2011 at 9:10 pm

    I am not sure whether you intended a parody but it is not a parody. What you have described is basically what The Team did and continues to do. They can sort of justify it because some other idiots did it before they did it.

    They make it look serious with some fancy but worthless statistics. But data points and statistics have never yielded science.

    As Professor Daly and other eminent scientists explained to The Team, paleoclimatology has not employed scientific method at all. If The Team are to become serious then they must do the empirical research that will yield the physical hypotheses that explain changes in relevant kinds of tree rings in the environments studied and over hundreds of years. Not one member of The Team would even consider the idea.

  58. Dave Salt says:

    Hi Dennis,

    Rather than flying the sort of ‘experiment’ you suggest aboard ISS, do you think daily flights to 100km aboard a suborbital RLV could be an alternate, or even, better option?

    Dave

  59. Theo Goodwin says:

    crosspatch says:
    November 26, 2011 at 8:48 pm
    “My guess is that it had to be done by an IT staffer or with the assistance of one. I would hope one had to have “root” access in order to obtain these files but I have seen mistakes where all users were placed in a “mail” group of a Unix server that held a mail store owned by “mail” user and “mail” group with group read/write privs.”

    This IT setup had to be simple enough to be used by Jones and friends. Who was the manager in charge of this IT setup? Phil Jones. My guess is that a nine-year old could have gained total access to it. By the way, given the skills involved, the culprit was a team.

  60. Mac the Knife says:

    artwest says:
    November 26, 2011 at 8:33 pm
    “I’d suspect a hell of a lot less than is p*ssed away by most developed economies in a single hour due to CAGW scaremongering.”

    Art,
    Believe me, I understand the disgust you sense for all of the taxpayer dollars wasted on the AGW meme. But I’m genuinely asking folks to flesh these ideas out some more and provide estimates here. If these are basic measurement packages that can get the fundamental data needed to really quantify the ‘positive feed back contribution of CO2′, then we ALL should pursue this with unswerving determination! If the ultimate answer is ‘not much – get a real religion’, I’d like to make that happen as soon as possible, before another 15 years of taxpayer treasure is wasted and an ersatz global regulation of CO2 is effected!!!

    If this is the foundation atmospheric physics that must be run, let’s get white paper proposals in place to secure funding to make it happen! Dress it up in AGW frippery to get the funding, maintain secure control while you run the experiments, analyse the data and publish the results openly and honestly.

  61. crosspatch says:

    This IT setup had to be simple enough to be used by Jones and friends.

    No, I don’t believe they would have operated the server which would, by all indications so far, be an SMTP mail server of some sort running a pop3 daemon. Jones would have had no need to ever log on to the server in that case, he would simply point his mail client at the server and the client would retrieve the mail.

  62. davidmhoffer says:

    Theo Goodwin says:
    November 26, 2011 at 9:38 pm
    davidmhoffer says:
    November 26, 2011 at 9:10 pm
    I am not sure whether you intended a parody but it is not a parody.>>>

    Nope. It was intended as a simplified explanation of “paleo science” and how it has been used. I chose 1950 for the suddenly short tree because that is in fact when tree ring data stopped tracking the temperature record. The tree ring studies that were then truncated to “hide the decline” were chopped off (if memory serves me correctly) in 1950 and 1960 respectively.

    I do write parodies from time to time, but they are way over the top ridiculous. Oh… I see your point. What they actually did was way over the top ridiculous…

  63. Theo Goodwin says:

    crosspatch says:
    November 26, 2011 at 9:50 pm

    I meant that Jones was the overseer of the server administrator, not that Jones was the administrator. With Jones as overseer, the server administrator could do whatever he pleased.

  64. Hi Dennis,

    Rather than flying the sort of ‘experiment’ you suggest aboard ISS, do you think daily flights to 100km aboard a suborbital RLV could be an alternate, or even, better option?

    Dave

    Dave old buddy! I do think that a suborbital system like Lynx or Spaceship II or Carmak’s vehicle or even the high altitude balloons would be part of a campaign to gain the data at a series of altitudes that would allow for a parameterization of CO2 absorption based upon physical measurements. However, with that being said, we also need the full data across the atmosphere that you would get from ISS.

    To answer another couple of people, to fly an instrument like this on the station for a year would probably cost about $5m dollars and a lot of that is for the data transfer through TDRSS. You also need an identical system on the ground, that is taken to several locations in order to get some good numbers. One of the things that has always bothered me is that there is both a temperature and a pressure relationship to any visible or IR absorber and at no time has the varying altitude of the ground been taken into account. So a really solid campaign would take a year and about $10-$15 m, with most of the ground stuff being used for travel for the sensors.

    These flights would be done from different parts of the world as well in order to use very dry climates as well as wet ones as it has been my experience that water vapor changes temps and absorption spectra far more than CO2, but let us let the actual data from the physical sciences tell us what the solution is, not suppositions.

    At the end of the day, I don’t care what the answer is, as long as the data is based upon real science and real measurements, not computer models backed up by at the end of the day, nothing more than Hansen’s empirical relationship.

  65. davidmhoffer says:

    crosspatch says:
    November 26, 2011 at 9:50 pm
    This IT setup had to be simple enough to be used by Jones and friends.
    No, I don’t believe they would have operated the server which would, by all indications so far, be an SMTP mail server of some sort running a pop3 daemon. Jones would have had no need to ever log on to the server in that case, he would simply point his mail client at the server and the client would retrieve the mail.>>>

    I wasn’t uncommon in the late 80’s and all through the 90’s for researchers to run their own email servers. It became less common from then on, but it didn’t disappear overnight. Keep in mind that the genesis of the internet was ARPANET which was created for the specific task of allowing electronic communication between researchers at various universities and various US government research agencies working with them. In those days, central IT at most universities had never heard of “email” and had no interest in getting involved with researchers and their compute problems. Central IT in those days was worried about payroll and general ledger and so on.

    Researchers of Jones et al vintage would have grown up self sufficient in UNIX administration, including setting up and running email servers. I’m not saying I know they did, just that it would not surprise me in the least that they could and did.

    That said, on the whocuddadunnit question, I’l leave you with the first rule of computer security:

    If you have physical access, then you have access.

    Could have been the janitor!

  66. Mac the Knife says:

    The real quote:
    “Badges? We ain’t got no badges. We don’t need no badges. I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ badges!!!”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ

    The oft attributed phrase “We don’t need no stinkin’ badges!” is as corrupted and false as Michael Mann’s infamous ‘hockey stick’

    “Pheesiks? We ain’t got no pheesiks. We don’t need no pheesiks. I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ pheesiks!!!” I think that tells the whole story, quite well….

  67. DCC says:

    Michael Mann has already shown he doesn’t understand statistics. Phil Jones admits to being baffled by Excel. The Team only recently discovered paleontology. Someday they may look at the history of the atmosphere over geologic time. And we know they refuse to ask for outside help. Expecting (radiative and convective transfer of energy) physics is asking too much; their plate is full.

  68. RockyRoad says:

    Dennis Ray Wingo, good points all and a tempting experiment. However, isn’t there so much heterogeneity of CO2 content in the atmosphere that you’d come up with all sorts of results, but what would it show for certain except there’s heterogeneity of CO2 content in the atmosphere?

  69. JPeden says:

    When a Warming Model asked for some results from real physics, Meester Bandito probably just gave her a physic, then changed the oil.

  70. Dr Burns says:

    Here is the highly biassed Sydney Morning Herald view of ClimateGate 2.0:

    “The IPCC found there was a 66 per cent probability that doubling the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would lead to a temperature rise of between 2 and 4.5 degrees.

    The new study funded by the US National Science Foundation estimated the warming at this level of emissions was most likely to be 2.3 degrees, with a 66 per cent probability it would be between 1.7 and 2.6 degrees.

    The world’s governments accept that a temperature rise of more than two degrees above pre-industrial levels is likely to have serious consequences, potentially triggering unpredictable tipping points as ice sheets collapse and large amounts of greenhouse gas are released from melting Siberian permafrost.”

    “Its publication followed the release on Tuesday of a second cache of hacked emails between senior climate scientists — dubbed “Climategate 2″ by sceptics.
    ….
    Nine inquiries into the initial hacked emails found nothing that undermined the climate science backed by the world’s major scientific academies.”

    The SMH is always full of this sort of rubbish. No wonder most the Australian populace has been so effectively brainwashed.

  71. pat says:

    finally….it’s game on….

    27 Nov: UK Telegraph: Lobbyists who cleared ‘Climategate’ academics funded by taxpayers and the BBC
    A shadowy lobby group which pushes the case that global warming is a real threat is being funded by the taxpayer and assisted by the BBC.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8469883/Lobbyists-who-cleared-Climategate-academics-funded-by-taxpayers-and-the-BBC.html

    BBC sought advice from global warming scientists on economy, drama, music… and even game shows
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066706/BBC-sought-advice-global-warming-scientists-economy-drama-music–game-shows.html

    27 Nov: Uk Daily Mail: Cameron’s green guru reveals his doubts over global warming
    Steve Hilton, the Prime Minister’s director of strategy and ‘green guru’, is the latest person to admit to doubts about climate change.
    ‘I’m not sure I believe in it,’ he announced at a meeting of the Energy Department, prompting one aide to blurt out: ‘Did I just hear that correctly?’
    According to one witness, Hilton, 41, the man who coined the slogan ‘Vote Blue and Go Green’ and changed the Tory symbol from a Stalinist style torch to an eco friendly tree, said: ‘Climate change arguments are highly complex.
    ‘My focus has always been more on using green issues to improve the quality of life.’ …
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066720/David-Camerons-green-guru-Steve-Hilton-reveals-doubts-global-warming.html

  72. Julian Braggins says:

    Dennis Ray Wingo says:
    November 26, 2011 at 6:57 pm
    —————————
    Dennis, would your experiment be able to confirm or refute one point in this paper, namely that increasing temperature increases the mean free path of EM radiation, thereby ( my probably erroneous conclusion) introducing a self limiting effect of CO2?

    http://www.biocab.org/Mean_Free_Path_Length_Photons.html (paper by Nasif Nahle)

    It would be nice to see his conclusion that CO2 has no effect on warming be vindicated by actual experiment.

  73. RobB says:

    Some good comments on this thread.

    Rattus Norvegicus says: November 26, 2011 at 6:04 pm
    “Dude, this is a group of people who study paleoclimates, what did you expect?”
    Agreed – CRU is headed up by an environmental scientist.

    Crispin in Waterloo says: November 26, 2011 at 7:09 pm

    Exactly my thoughts Crispin, but put much better that I could. I think with the impending economic armageddon we should be in a good position to radically cut money to lots of public sector bodies, including academic institutions like CRU and the likes of the Met Office. Academia in particular needs a complete overhaul with the new found free access to information provided by the Internet.

  74. Tom Harley says:

    It’s not really a surprise either that recently, the Fairfax family have practically removed themselves totally from the share register of Fairfax Media, home of the Silly Morning Herald….

  75. Mack says:

    I didn’t know Micheal Mann was an aussie. Must come from Seedny ; )

  76. Another Ian says:

    Dr Burns says:
    November 26, 2011 at 11:09 pm

    Incorrect start – most of Australia don’t read the SNH.

    Wider view at (e.g.) http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/

  77. However, isn’t there so much heterogeneity of CO2 content in the atmosphere that you’d come up with all sorts of results, but what would it show for certain except there’s heterogeneity of CO2 content in the atmosphere?

    The measurements would be of the bandpass of the spectrum of CO2. When an IR absorber like CO2 is absorbing energy at a certain concentration (the probability of the intercept of any particular IR photon is proportional to the statistics of cross sectional area of the gas but only at the wavelength that the molecule absorbs) the theory is that as CO2 concentrations increase the spread of the wavelengths that can be absorbed) Up until saturation this is pretty much a gaussian curve centered at the wavelength of the vibrational mode under study. Where it gets interesting is when the gaussian shape is shifted to a Lorentzian shape due to increasing pressure, temperature, and concentration in the atmosphere. The Lorenz shape has the “wings” of absorption which is a further broadening of the gaussian probability of the intercept of an IR photon.

    At the end of the day, this is what the question is all about. How much is the gaussian/lorentz shape broadened due to an increase in concentration from 0.028% to 0.039% of the atmosphere as well as at what altitude does desaturation occur. As as altitude increases, pressure and temperature declines, which both have the effect (assuming a constant proportional partial pressure of CO2) of narrowing the absorption lines (like beginning to open a blind to let more light into a room) (the Lorentz/gaussian shape). When the desaturation altitude is reached the blinds (CO2 concentration is no longer high enough to stop all radiation at even the peak of the gaussian curve) become more transparent to the wavelength transiting. At what altitude does this occur for the CO2 bands that are fully saturated at sea level?.

    In theory all of this was measured during the USAF high altitude research flights of the 40’s through 1960’s for the purpose of designing infrared heat seekers for antiaircraft missiles. I have a bit of the derived data as I bought a library from Morton Thiokol when they pulled out of Huntsville in the 1990’s and a lot of their technical data related to measuring the temperature of a rocket plume was all from IR sensors and so they had a lot of this literature. At some point this goes into the classified world but everything that I am talking about is available or known from public documents. I even have records of experiments done on sea level extinction coefficients for IR energy done in the 1930’s in China.

    There is nothing that I am talking about here that has not been measured before, to high accuracy. To see where the differences are from then to now should be a fairly straightforward task.

  78. To put this in proper context, I don’t know what the effect of CO2 is on the absorption spectra of CO2 and then what that effect is on the climate, and damned if anyone from the consensus climate science community does either, that is the point!

    It is absolutely possible to get direct quantitive and qualitative data on the subject (as it was 50 years ago) and why this is not being done and why the climate alchemists continue to be funded to the exclusion of physical scientists and relied upon for their analysis of bug farts and tree rings is simply another indication of the rot in public policy these days.

    The best part of this is that it is 100% replicable by any competent scientist in the field with fairly modest resources. The even better part is that it is possible that we still have the direct field data from an era when the scientists say that is good (CO2 at a concentration of less than 300 ppm). I have been working with data from the 1960’s (Lunar Orbiter and Nimbus I,II, and II) for several years now and our fathers and grandfathers were damned good experimental scientists and we should be able to do the proper comparative analysis. We found ourselves that if you go behind the derived product data to the original, that it is highly likely that it is of higher quality that the derived products.

    Until the analysis of the direct data is undertaken and we quit fooling around with the proxies, we are never going to gain an accurate understanding of the issue.

  79. Walter says:

    Re email servers:

    It is highly likely that a single unix server was used for email with people using desktop clients (eg outlook or similar) to pull from that.

    NOW the thing about such email servers is that they can EASILY be set up to place a COPY of EVERY email passing through into a continuous stream file – this is simply a file the can be used later as an audit trail. The users of the system do not even know that every email sent and received has had a copy stashed. Pulling such a file apart later is a tedious and boring process, but quite possible.

    My speculation is that this is what has happened.

  80. Katabasis says:

    Guys – in all seriousness, consult the initial testimony of the UEA IT staff on this back in 2009:

    http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/MR%2018%20Dec%20final%20IT%20Personnel.pdf

    One of the IT staff states confidently that it was a “sophisticated hack” but provides no evidence.

    However most of the other participants treat the possibility of a leak very seriously.

    Now I know there are many other computing types here other than me, including some that have also provided network support commercially – read this testimony; what do you see?

    My reaction now is the same as it was when I first read this report nearly two years ago:

    i) The CRU IT infrastructure is (was) nothing short of crazy with unaccounted for data and means for access to it scattered all over the place.

    ii) Imagine an external hacker footprinting that mess? I’m not even sure it would be possible without intimate knowledge of the internal workings of CRU and especially its scattered IT “policy”.

  81. crosspatch says:

    To see where the differences are from then to now should be a fairly straightforward task.

    Given the technology available to individual citizens over the counter compared to what was available in the 1930’s, I would think this would be a doable experiment for a private citizen with access to an airplane. What altitude are we talking about? Would a balloon be able to perform the required data collection? What about a sounding rocket launched from, say, the Black Rock desert?

    And to be honest, if this were so simple an experiment to perform, and if it were to validate the AGW I would assume that it would have been done and published. My guess from the fact that it hasn’t been published is that maybe it has been done but didn’t validate the hypothesis and so has been suppressed.

  82. crosspatch says:

    Hehe, re: backup server

    Maybe that explains why 0626.txt is in this batch.

  83. David L says:

    @kim2ooo says:
    November 26, 2011 at 6:55 pm
    ….”Soooooooo…. Paleontology – ” paleoclimates” doesn’t / don’t need /require physics? AND modelers do?

    I think you have this bassaskwards :)”

    Everyone needs physics!!!!! :-)

    By the way, Mr. Mann started out Yale grad. school in Theoretical Nuclear Physics prior to switching over to geophysics dept.

  84. crosspatch says:

    the point of 0626 being in this batch might be a message: “I got a lot more than just your email, folks, I have everything on your computers … code, drafts, data, Pr0n, everything.

  85. Ian W says:

    Ian W says:
    November 26, 2011 at 7:57 pm
    To that you have to add that as water vapor (feedback?) increases as a percentage of a volume of air so the enthalpy of that volume increases. So the heat energy required to raise that volume of air increases by up to ~10 times.

    This is too high. The percent water vapor in the atmosphere can vary from close to 0% to about 4%. The specific heat capacity of air is 1.0. Let us assume the specific heat capacity of water vapor is 2.0. So if the air has 4% water vapor, the average specific heat capacity is 1.04. I know the molar mass of water is 18 and not 29, but if we just assume they are the same, then the mass of the atmosphere with 4% water vapor is 4% larger than if there is 0% water vapor. (I am also generously assuming water vapor exists evenly throughout the atmosphere and does not condense out.) Then applying mct(moist air) = mct(dry air), we find that the mc for the moist air is 8% larger than for dry air. So to balance things out, the dry air has to have a temperature change that is 8% larger than the moist air. In other words, if moist air goes up by 1.00 degrees C, the dry air, with the same energy input, would go up by 1.08 degrees C. So unless I am missing something, I would say the difference is 8% at the most.

    I suggest that you check your assumptions about saturated air and read http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/enthalpy-moist-air-d_683.html and use the formulae there

  86. Ken Hall says:

    “Dennis Ray Wingo says:
    November 26, 2011 at 6:57 pm … ”

    Thank You… Comment of the year for me. Sums it all up, succinctly and definitively. When there are billions, nay, hundreds of billions of dollars being extracted from global tax-payers because of AGW, there is no excuse for failing to do what you suggest. Donning my tinfoil hat, I can only come up with one reason. There is a conspiracy to prevent the truth of the matter being conclusively known.

  87. wayne says:

    @ Katabasis
    http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/MR%2018%20Dec%20final%20IT%20Personnel.pdf
    Interesting. What about that part how BBC evidently knew before the leak OR realClimate? (Nov 12)
    They should follow Occam’s razor, 1) simple inside leak, or 2) very sophisticated unbelivable hack…. inside leak.

  88. Juraj V. says:

    Until those 5,000 ppm of CO2 in Martian atmosphere does not create any measurable “greenhouse effect”, that 100 ppm of allegedly anthropogenic one should be beyond serious discussion. We have plenty of natural mechanisms to be blamed for both warming or cooling.

  89. DirkH says:

    Anthony, shouldn’t it be “steenkin” instead of “steekin” in the title? ;-)

    [Fixed, thanks. ~dbs]

  90. Marine_Shale says:

    Steven Mosher,
    I have enjoyed your contribution to the debate for a number of years, but your recent decent into condescending arrogance in defence of your “lukewarmism” is wearing very thin with me as well.
    davidmhoffer is quite correct in his response to your defence of rattus, it is BS.
    Perhaps you should emulate bender (who always had a point when he was being acerbic)
    and take some time to regain your composure.

  91. Jean Parisot says:

    crosspatch, tried that. It seems they don’t want this particular mission creep.

  92. Robert Brown says:

    “In other words, if there existed a correlation between church of England attendance and the temperature record over a cherry picked calibration period, they could not resist including it in their reconstructions. ”

    Or, perhaps, pirates?

    http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

    Personally, I am paying careful attention to this. Global temperatures, as we all know, have peskily refused to go up for the last 12-13 years (since the 1998 peak) and are very likely actually edging down. Now they COULD be following the solar cycle — the 20th century represented a 9000 year Grand Maximum peak in solar activity, according to the proxy record as (re)published on the solar archives site, and the sun appears to be returning to its “normal” much less active state. However, conceptually this involves the use of all of that pesky physics (including the numerous bits that we haven’t really worked out yet or don’t correctly include in the GCMs). Or, it COULD be that the effect of the recent growth in the number of pirates especially from Somalia is finally being felt and we are being pulled back from the brink of disaster.

    It’s enough to make me want to take my boat out to sea with a jolly roger flying overhead and see if I can pillage a dinghy or two. We all need to do our duty here. If only we could get the IPCC to see — the correlation between global temperatures and the number of pirates is far too strong to be “just chance”. If we could get a number of countries in the developing world to convert their legitimate navies in to privateers and outright pirates, I am certain that the effects on global temperature would be immediate and profound, especially if the next solar cycle continues to regress towards the mean or even overshoots to a Grand Minimum a la Maunder minimum.

    Just remember, it is pirates, not the sun, or CO_2, or space aliens, or the solar system moving through bands of diffuse dark matter that cause a distributed local heating through physical mechanisms not yet well understood.

    rgb

  93. pax says:

    Uhm, those people are paleo scientists.

  94. Robert Brown says:

    “The oft attributed phrase “We don’t need no stinkin’ badges!” is as corrupted and false as Michael Mann’s infamous ‘hockey stick’ ”

    Or rather, it is the correct quote of the JOKE misquote from Blazing Saddles, which was a very different context…;-)

  95. pochas says:

    steven mosher says:
    November 26, 2011 at 8:05 pm

    “paleo climate does in fact help us constrain the boundaries of the ECR.”

    The climate is never at equilibrium. It is continually being juked around by innumerable inside and outside influences. ECR (Equilibrium Climate Response) is simply an attempt by the AGW ignoramuses to claim that the paleo temperature range is due only to CO2.

  96. Steve Richards says:

    @Dennis Ray Wingo:

    Would this experiment be easier to perform in the lab?

    Say a 10m tube, energy emitter at one end, temperature sensors and spectral receivers at the other end.

    Vary the energy source, pressure and the tube contents (CO2 and water vapour etc).

    We would then have a repeatable measure of CO2 absorption in a variety of atmospheres.

    Field studies could constructed to use balloons to measure CO2 and water vapour etc values for every 1000 feet of altitude (by taking samples).

  97. TomT says:

    Ok so I saw the passworrd protected folders mentioned here, and it occurred to me that perhaps the reason FOIA has released the email the way it has because the folders were password protected one inside another, and they caked the first password two years ago and then this one now, but they gave up on the next one and so released it too in the hope that someone would be able to crack it. I know this is off topic but I just had that thought when someone on this thread mentioned the password folders.

  98. Paul Murphy says:

    99 comments and only one (by Davidson) states the obvious? “The team” doesn’t use physics because the physics contradicts their thesis.

  99. Paul Linsay says:

    Dennis Ray Wingo @ Nov 27, 1:18 am

    “At the end of the day, this is what the question is all about. How much is the gaussian/lorentz shape broadened due to an increase in concentration from 0.028% to 0.039% of the atmosphere as well as at what altitude does desaturation occur. As as altitude increases, pressure and temperature declines, which both have the effect (assuming a constant proportional partial pressure of CO2) of narrowing the absorption lines (like beginning to open a blind to let more light into a room) (the Lorentz/gaussian shape). When the desaturation altitude is reached the blinds (CO2 concentration is no longer high enough to stop all radiation at even the peak of the gaussian curve) become more transparent to the wavelength transiting. At what altitude does this occur for the CO2 bands that are fully saturated at sea level?.”

    This touches on another important point that I never see addressed. As CO2 concentrations increase, the absorption of IR at ground level only increases logarithmically since the principal spectral lines are all saturated and only the wings and very weak lines come into play. But at the altitude you describe as “the blinds become transparent” the radiation to space by the CO2 increases linearly with concentration since it will always occur from the strongest spectral lines. The net effect should be extra cooling of the atmosphere, not extra heating.

  100. sanjhar says:

    too many comments but i do believe what been said..the stolen fact indeed

  101. John Whitman says:

    Not only was the paleo ‘Team’ of AR4 WG1 gamers not physicists, they weren’t statisticians either.

    They were assigned by the ‘save the planet’ ideologues to clearly show unprecedented warming in the 20th and early 21st century. They failed while getting a score of zero points for professionalism and integrity.

    I suggest the paleo team members were selected because they were expendable. Whoever picked them was right . . . they are indeed expendable.

    John

  102. Gail Combs says:

    Dennis Ray Wingo says:
    November 26, 2011 at 6:57 pm
    ….The USAF in the 1940′s and 1950′s literally drove the technology of infrared and visible spectrometers in their famous “upper atmospheric research” flights in B29′s and other jets during that period. They took increasingly detailed spectrograms, down to where they could eventually measure the gaussian of an individual CO2 absorption feature at different altitudes…..
    ____________________________________________
    One of the crucial assumptions seems to be that CO2 is “uniform” through out the atmosphere. As a chemist who dealt with real world mixing problems in industry, I have a major problem with that assumption.

    Can you shed any light on that point???

  103. JPeden says:

    Paul Murphy says:
    November 27, 2011 at 7:07 am

    99 comments and only one (by Davidson) states the obvious? “The team” doesn’t use physics because the physics contradicts their thesis.

    Not quite. They don’t use physics because they are not doing real science and are in fact intentionally avoiding it. Climate Science is only a massive Propaganda Op. = Postnormal “Science”. “Onward, comrades compadres, perceeption ees reeality! Vaminos!”

  104. HankHenry says:

    In addition to a lack of physics how much biology is being used if you work on the assumption that lack of growth in tree rings gives you a good proxy for temperatures. Trees fail to thrive for lots of reasons and the width of a tree ring is hardly a good measure of the average temperature over a whole year.

  105. JPeden says:

    Si se pueda!

  106. Dave Springer says:

    Rattus Norvegicus says:
    November 26, 2011 at 6:04 pm

    “Dude, this is a group of people who study paleoclimates, what did you expect? I expect that you would have had a lot more discussion of physics if the emails of a modeling group had been stolen.”

    I have to agree. These are climatologists and climatology is an actuarial science not an experimental science. In fact it’s SO actuarial they’re actually selling an insurance policy (a rose by any other name…) when they talk about the precautionary principle as the reasoning behind limiting carbon emissions.

  107. JPeden says:

    “Vaminos, Teeemnachos!”

    The Gringos banished Speedy Gonzales, long live Speedy Gonzales!

    With due respects to Blazing Saddles, which should also be banished! Along with coffee.

  108. kim2ooo says:

    David L says:
    November 27, 2011 at 3:07 am

    Everyone needs physics!!!!! :-) ” ]

    NOT TRUE!! :)

    I’m gonna grow big boobies [ Or buy them ] – win a talent or beauty contest – appear in a movie…..

    AND Join the all come back…. Al Gore Show…:)

  109. Elephant in the room on this topic is the Slayers’ science that refutes the greenhouse gas effect. If you want rigorous atmospheric physics that also applies experimental evidence to back it up then simply read the research papers over at Principia Scientific International (PSI) under ‘Publications.’
    http://principia-scientific.org/
    Note: this is not a plug for any book – the above papers are free to view to anybody – this is merely a suggestion that some people need to take a long hard look at what’s been productively achieved by an independent think tank of 22 scientists, 11 with PhD’s who have done detailed research (unpaid) on the failing GHE hypothesis.

  110. kim2ooo says:

    David L says:
    November 27, 2011 at 3:07 am

    By the way, Mr. Mann started out Yale grad. school in Theoretical Nuclear Physics prior to switching over to geophysics dept. ” ]

    Thank goodness he quit…can you imagine him putting a reactor in upside down? [ Contaminated Tiljander sediments upside down. Mann et al 2008 ].

  111. Gail Combs says:

    Dennis Ray Wingo says:
    November 26, 2011 at 7:28 pm

    I swear by Gropthar’s Hammer that I got this email from the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) after this thread started.

    Colleagues,

    The next Enterprise Chapter meeting….
    _____________________________________
    HOLY BAT GUANO ROBIN! http://files1.guildlaunch.net/guild/library/68863/batman%20horrified.jpg

  112. Gail Combs says:

    Jean Parisot says:
    November 26, 2011 at 7:54 pm

    I have submitted several experiments for consideration that would measure specific model parameters, no USAF interest. No one wants to open Pandora’s box.
    ______________________
    This along with other scientists who truly want to do REAL work is the smoking gun in my opinion.

    Dr Jaworski was also turned down when he wanted funding to further study whether the Ice Core CO2 measurements were correct. I can not find the PDF but the reason given was that his findings might upset CAGW.

    Dr Jaworski discusses the politics in this link: http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf

  113. kim2ooo says:

    johnosullivan says:
    November 27, 2011 at 8:31 am

    OT but maybe, you can ask Mr Watts for room to explain about what happened surrounding / to the Japan Satellite Story????

  114. _Jim says:

    Robert Austin says November 26, 2011 at 7:27 pm

    Rattus Norvegicus says:
    November 26, 2011 at 6:04 pm

    I agree with Rattus that these guys are paleos, dendros etc. and the actual physics of climate are outside of their purview and expertise.

    But – but – they (paleos, dendros et al) are in cahoots with those running MODELS (ostensibly ‘physics based’) to show linkage with/causation due to rising CO2 levels?

    Rattus attempts to ‘move’ the goal line once again. Don’t take your eye off the ball for a moment. These e-mails are damning and give insight into the ‘practices’ they employ.

    .

  115. Gail Combs says:

    crosspatch says:
    November 26, 2011 at 8:00 pm

    No one wants to open Pandora’s box.

    There’s no butter on that side of the bread. You will need to present the experiment in such a way as it looks to be a shoo-in to validate AGW. You position it that way in order to get the funding, pretend that you are out to validate the hypothesis and then once it is done, publish what the data show.
    ________________________________________
    You forgot something Smokey,

    AND you add the get out of Peer Review free card

    “This study does not in any way negate the validity of the dangers from anthropogenic greenhouse gases”

    I am so sick of seeing that sentence or its like stuck on every peer reviewed paper. Even when the paper SHOWS it is a crock.

  116. Stan M. Isaacson says:

    Dennis Ray Wingo hits on a very good point. “If I wanted to “prove” AGW, there are ways to do it today and do it experimentally. Why are these experiments not being undertaken?”

    We can all guess the answer to that question, but his idea for qualified scientists to carry out these experiments is really just what we need right now. If the research proposals are couched in standard AGW speak there should be plenty of funding sources available. A number of well conducted studies by respected lukewarmer type physicists is just the scientific stake we need to drive through the heart of the global warming belief system.

    Gray

  117. J Martin says:

    Katabasis & Wayne,

    An interesting pdf. I like the bit where one of the participants laments the fact that the emails are not deleted from the backup server after a period of time. Surely if the university were to implement doing so it would be a breach of the data protection act.

    Whether the emails were obtained via local or remote hacking / access we may never know unless the people behind it come to be known. Whoever did it deserves a medal for delivering some of the information that so many obstructed foia requests asked for.

    I can understand that the police have to do their job and try to track down the hero or hero’s responsible for the release of these emails. But I would like to know why the police are neglecting to investigate and prosecute Jones et al for the many admissions relating to deleting of emails etc.shown in both releases of emails.

    If the police only pursue the path of perceived political correctness and do not enforce ALL the laws, then we are on the way to a form of police state last seen in communist Europe, and still present in many tin pot countries.

    Perhaps the police are in collusion with the hacker and have taken away the server in order to prevent the truth from coming to light ? OK, that one does rather go against Occam’s razor.

    The backup server may itself have been backed up to tape (or hard drive), if that’s the case then there would not necessarily be any traces to be found in the backup server itself. You simply take a tape and copy it, post the copy to Russia, then put back the original tape where you got it from. Unless of course some Unix expert can tell me this wasn’t possible for some techy reason.

    It considerably disturbs me that the UEA and the police are allowing the blatant admissions of foia obfuscation and email deletion by members of the team to go unpunished. My taxes pay for the police and I expect them to do their duty even handedly. If they pursue hackers / leakers / whistle-blowers, then they should also pursue apparent breaches of the data protection act. That might also include asking why the UEA servers and IT systems were not better secured. Perhaps the UEA is itself in breach of the data protection act.

  118. davidmhoffer says:

    kim2000;
    By the way, Mr. Mann started out Yale grad. school in Theoretical Nuclear Physics prior to switching over to geophysics dept. ” ]
    Thank goodness he quit…can you imagine him putting a reactor in upside down? >>>

    That was so funny that I had to clean the coffee off my keyboard twice. Once when I read it and once more when I wiped off the screen and the comment was still there to read again.

  119. J Martin says:

    Kim 2000

    The question is what career path could Mann etc follow once they have served any jail time society might hopefully one day succeed in levying.

    My first thought was supermarket shelf stacker, until I thought more about it, and realised that I would have a hard time reading the labels if they were upside down, the contents may well also have been adjusted in unfortunate ways and the signs in the store directing me to the relevant ails would have been obfuscated to say the least.

    Flower arrangers perhaps, but then again, some flowers stuffed into the vase upside down, stalks cut at inconvenient lengths.

    Has anyone got any ideas to help rehabilitate the team to become useful members of society ?

  120. TomT says:
    November 27, 2011 at 7:06 am

    Ok so I saw the passworrd protected folders mentioned here, and it occurred to me that perhaps the reason FOIA has released the email the way it has because the folders were password protected one inside another, and they caked the first password two years ago and then this one now, but they gave up on the next one and so released it too in the hope that someone would be able to crack it.

    I find it unlikely that the e-mails were encrypted originally. Even less likely that there were several layers. Why would an administrator do that?

    Someone probably got (or had if there’s anything to the whistleblower theory) root access and offloaded the entire spool directory of the mail server (or a copy of it). I would be unusual to encrypt this, and if it was, everything would probably need the same password.

  121. Gail Combs says:

    Mac the Knife says:
    November 26, 2011 at 9:46 pm

    …If this is the foundation atmospheric physics that must be run, let’s get white paper proposals in place to secure funding to make it happen! Dress it up in AGW frippery to get the funding, maintain secure control while you run the experiments, analyse the data and publish the results openly and honestly.
    ___________________________________
    Depending on the amount there is a possibility of funding from sources outside the usual. The Koch brothers come to mind and others in industry that are the target of this whole mess.

    I know from watching another issue that we are not talking about a united front among ALL the elite.

  122. kim2ooo says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    November 27, 2011 at 9:40 am

    Ha ha ha ha……. :)

    Thank you for letting me know…feedback is appreciated.

  123. kim2ooo says:

    Dear Mr Watts,

    Since I have a hard time telling Mr Mann – Mr Schmidt – Mr Black apart in their pictures…could you please post Mr Manns’ upside down for me?

    I believe it would be of great service to us readers ;)

  124. Gail Combs says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    November 26, 2011 at 10:04 pm

    …..Researchers of Jones et al vintage would have grown up self sufficient in UNIX administration, including setting up and running email servers. I’m not saying I know they did, just that it would not surprise me in the least that they could and did…..
    _________________________________________
    Actually that is where my Spouse got his Computer experience. He ran the computers FOR the scientists at MIT Lincoln labs during the Vietnam era. We are talking punch cards era and forward.

    So the labs did hire people to take care of the computers even back then.

    If Jones can not even run Excel, I VERY much doubt he was running Unix or any other of those more difficult languages.

    That is why “BASIC” was invented. A simple language for us dumb scientists to use. I had a ONE HOUR lecture on BASIC during my training in undergrad Chemistry in 1970.

  125. Sean Peake says:

    Briffa is a likely candidate to be the whistle blower.

    I, too, thought that in 2009 but after reading some of Gail Combs’ posts, I lean more towards Alan Kendall

  126. kim2ooo says:

    J Martin says:
    November 27, 2011 at 9:44 am

    Hmmmmmm…what do they call the trapeze artist that hangs upside down in the circus??? :)

  127. kim2ooo says:

    Gail Combs says:
    November 27, 2011 at 10:06 am

    I just want to thank you….I enjoy your posts filled with information :)

  128. davidmhoffer says:

    kim2ooo says:
    November 27, 2011 at 10:05 am
    Dear Mr Watts,
    Since I have a hard time telling Mr Mann – Mr Schmidt – Mr Black apart in their pictures…could you please post Mr Manns’ upside down for me?>>>

    That’s THREE times I’ve had to clean a keyboard this morning. Not to mention that my sides hurt.

  129. Richard Sharpe says:

    pat says on November 26, 2011 at 6:13 pm

    o/t but the MSM’s refusal to expose the public to the contents of Climategate II emails is nothing short of a disgrace:

    Which gives us an opportunity to point out to people just how irrelevant the MSM are, n’est pas?

  130. kim2ooo says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    November 27, 2011 at 10:13 am

    Awwww…your poor keyboard.
    But I’m happy if I brought a smile into your day! :)

  131. kim2ooo says:

    J Martin says:
    November 27, 2011 at 9:44 am

    Personally, I’d like to see them ALL in service to the environment…hmmm….. pickin’ up trash???

  132. Gail Combs says:

    Dennis Ray Wingo says:
    November 27, 2011 at 1:39 am

    …..Until the analysis of the direct data is undertaken and we quit fooling around with the proxies, we are never going to gain an accurate understanding of the issue.
    ________________________________________
    And that is WHY none of this has been done and anyone who tries gets frozen out.

    What we have is MSM propaganda supported by hand wavy corrupt “Pscyence” and that is exactly what is wanted. A definitive experiment that proves or disproves the CAGW theory would be death to all the trillions of dollars of easy money. It would be death to all the political power.

    Even if you got the experiment done it would be shouted down just as Dr Jaworski’s papers on ice cores were shouted down.

    I am glad you grabbed that data by the way, guard it well.

  133. Robert Brown says:

    “NOW the thing about such email servers is that they can EASILY be set up to place a COPY of EVERY email passing through into a continuous stream file – this is simply a file the can be used later as an audit trail. The users of the system do not even know that every email sent and received has had a copy stashed. Pulling such a file apart later is a tedious and boring process, but quite possible.

    My speculation is that this is what has happened.”

    As a 25 year Unix sysadmin (as well as physicist) I would disagree. None of this is standard of practice, or common, or likely. It is far, far more likely that the mail spool directory e.g. /var/spool/mail on the primary server was religiously backed up in one of the usual “reliable” (to 3-4 9s) methodologies, e.g. a full backup once a month or thereabouts (periodically stored offsite), followed by incrementals that track the day to day diffs in the individual user spools. In that way the mail spool file as of any given day could be reconstructed from the full overlaid with the incremental.

    Typically the backup process will not pick up any mail received during the day and deleted on the same day, although over the last 5+ years many sites have adopted a much more aggressive mirroring and incremental system that backs up the primary spool to a DISK on a secondary (large) backup server, as often as every X hours. I don’t know of any systems that journal EVERY change — one hits information theoretic problems that make it very difficult to provision enough storage with too fine-grained of even a differencing scheme, especially with binary files.

    There are thus two possible explanations for where the list came from. Most likely is that somebody hacked into the system OR abused their pre-existing privileges on the system to run e.g. cat /var/spool/mail/* > cru-spool.txt. This is fast and easy and records an instant snapshot of everything all jumbled together. Personally, I wouldn’t do this — I’d do tar cvf var-spool-mail.tar /var/spool/mail and then compress it and copy it out of there — that would make it a lot easier to sort things out by user later (basically it makes an archive copy of the entire mail spool). This would explain why there are holes — any mail deleted from the server as of the time the copy is made is not in the individual mail spool files.

    A second (less likely) possibility is that the hacker/cracker/sysadmin had and used access to the full/incremental backups and built a COMPLETE record of the mail spool file ex post facto, including files that were deleted by the users sometime AFTER they were recorded on an incremental (on whatever schedule the incrementals run). Even this is probably not “complete” — I’d guestimate that 20-40% of all incoming mail never makes it into a incremental (in my own case it is more like 80%, given the effectiveness of my spam filters and instant deletion of junk mail, but others are less vigilant or don’t know how to use procmail filters) but people in research tend to save IMPORTANT letters from their friends in their mail spools and not delete them so rapidly. Some of them they might, however, copy into personal mail folders in their local system space and although this would also have been backed up it would be VERY tedious to go through all of userspace looking for it. In many cases saving a message to a local spool deletes it from the primary spool.

    If I were a forensic computer cop (and I am a bit of a security expert, although not a cop), I would first be giving polygraphs to the systems admins, then to the e.g. grad students, postdocs, faculty, staff. I’ve seen appallingly poor practice — the root password literally posted on a bulletin board in the server room so that postdocs can “self-service” certain problems — and then, depending on the operating system used on the server and how it was maintained, it may well have had easily exploitable and well-known holes that permitted unauthorized people to gain root access to run the tar command (e.g.) above. For example, if /var/spool/mail was exported via NFS, users may have been able to mount it on their own LAPTOPS with root access. Terrible practice, incompetent sysadmins, but FWIW there are plenty of incompetent sysadmins in the world and even the best of them has a hard time patching every possible leak in the security-dike.

    FOIA is, from the look of it, not an idiot. He/she chose a competent encryption, for example, going out of his/her way to do so. Using zip suggests that he/she is more of a windows user than a linux user — a linux user might have been more inclined to use tar or bzip, possibly with gpg to do the core encryption. OTOH, to be able to copy the entire contents of the mail spool directory, either as a snapshot or from backups, bespeaks a nontrivial knowledge of Unix/linux as well.

    The really interesting question is: what led them to do what they did? Were they a legitimate root user who was going through mail for some other reason who saw something that shocked them so much that they interpreted it as a “crime” and motivated them to violate the privacy of these users? Were they a grad student or postdoc who had a strong (if somewhat fluid:-) sense of “ethics” (and who was a bit of a hacker) who got pissed off at the blatant cherrypicking and general assholery going on and who used their diabolical skills to root the system and “out” the damning emails? Were they (still possible) an OUTSIDE cracker — a member of this very blog, perhaps — with mad skills who found an exploit that permitted them to get to the mail spool from outside? The latter isn’t insanely unlikely — again, general incompetence in systems staff often leaves exploitable holes, especially if Windows-based systems form a significant part of the server infrastructure.

    A secondary question is how much access they had to the individual userspace directories of the people involved. Yes, if they had the time and the means they could have copied the entire filesystem out of the premises including all of the home directories and backed up research space. I’ve seen it done before, by an Evil Postdoc who was seeking to steal a copy of an entire research “snapshot” to go through later looking for patentable/stealable IP. I’m sure there is lots of bandwidth in and out of CRU, although there is a bit of a risk with logfiles revealing whodunnit if they were at all sloppy (again evidence that FOIA is smarter than the average bear — most dumbasses would leave unmistakeable traces in the form of e.g. IP numbers and/or login records or would do it at a time that a vigilant sysadmin would be likely to notice (for example) that the server was sluggish as it works to make a copy of a TB or so of data and move it over the network).

    None of this matters very much, not really. Most sysadmins follow a code of ethics that explicitly prohibits this sort of thing — they are not “participants” in what goes on, they are an essential part of the infrastructure that permits it to happen, and the whole infrastructure suffers to the extent that individuals using it cannot rely on its security and privacy. This has the feel of somebody with passion, a participant or a disgruntled employee with a serious grudge (or both, a disgruntled employee who IS a participant, e.g. a postdoc who was screwed or badly treated by one of the hockey team and who got fed up with the arrant hypocrisy of the entire self-serving system). But it could be that FOIA is a complete outsider, an uberhacker funded by an ultraconservative shell foundation that is a front for the oil industry for all that we can tell. So what? As long as the spool is genuine, it is genuine. It’s wikileaks city — criminal according to the letter of the law, offensive to anyone who respects privacy, and yet it “outs” abominable, despicable behavior and deliberate deception in a process that is supposed to be the EPITOME of honesty, scientific research.

    At the end of the day, this is what all of the leaks have revealed. Many of the participants do indeed believe in the religion they have helped found. Jones, in particular, has a long history of being swept along by this almost against his will. His OWN temperature reconstructions prior to IPCC 1 showed the LIA and MWP, and (IIRC) he expressed some serious skepticism towards MBH and the hockey stick at the beginning, before allowing himself to be convinced and even to participate using the “new” method of cherrypicking the data. His angst has become even more pronounced — although he still “believes” that AGW is taking place and may still be catastrophic, he acknowledges that the evidence is getting thinner and thinner and that the early papers upon which the “catastrophic” part was based e.g. the hockey stick were bullshit.

    He is not alone, even among those that still “believe” in AGW. This too is clearly proven in the email messages.

    The sad thing is that the language of the entire debate has devolved, moving far, far away from the language of science. The idea of padding scientific committees intended to review science upon which hundreds of billions of dollars worth of policy decisions are supposed to be based with hand-picked members who will deliver a pre-agreed upon conclusion is offensive to any scientist — even if you truly do believe that some “skeptics” are just as religious as hockey team “believers” seem to be, there are plenty of real scientists who are skeptical (like me). I’m even a physicist, with no dog in the fight. I may not be an expert on dendroclimatology, but I can detect bullshit science and confirmation bias and lying with statistics when I see it. I can also make perfectly reasonable suggestions for ways of improving the science — DRW’s empirical studies being a perfect case in point; directly measuring nighttime cooling rates over time in arid climates (as I’ve suggested on other threads) being another.

    I’m even sane enough not to knee-jerk reject the idea that there is SOME anthropogenic component to global warming since the LIA because I don’t “like” the hypothesis or want to get paid off by giant oil companies or because I like driving an Excursion and having electricity and refrigeration and air conditioning and plenty of food and all of the other things that plentiful and cheap energy provides me. The big question is, however, how much?

    To answer this, one has to begin by determining the temperature that we SHOULD be experiencing outside, less the increased CO_2. Without an accurate knowledge of this baseline — accurate to well WITHIN the marginal temperature increase supposedly attributable to CO_2 — it is not possible to transform OBSERVATIONS of global temperature (no matter how accurate) into an estimate of the MEASURED effects of the CO_2 increase. With some readily available confounding variables that are perfectly capable of explaining all or most of the observed temperature variation even before looking at CO_2, this is not easy.

    This is where Mann’s hockey stick has done the world an enormous disservice. Because it was so very, very badly done, it was far too easy to falsify. Everyone who was merely rightly skeptical of any far-reaching hypothesis such as AGW has now — equally rightly — become even more skeptical, and Climategate I and II only reinforce that by revealing that the primary participants in the game have been WILFULLY lying, WILFULLY manipulating the data, KNOWINGLY engaging in cherry picking and confirmation bias, hell, openly stacking the supposedly fair deck of their committees and refereeing process to prevent any real scientific challenge to their foregone conclusions from emerging. The theory is, in their mind, not falsifiable, it is “given truth”, as obvious as the truths that the world is flat and at the center of the Universe. All evidence supports their hypothesis; evidence that appears to contradict it is not permitted to reduce their degree of belief and is ruthlessly suppressed.

    None of it matters. Economics will, slowly but surely, push the world away from burning as much “fossil fuel” because it is a scarce resource with a high cost of recovery and a high environmental cost associated with its use OUTSIDE of the possible cost associated with “CO_2. and AGW”. In fifty years I will be dead, but atmospheric CO_2 will be on the way back down from a peak that will have been well short of 600 ppm. Most of the hype and religious dogma associated with the current “crisis” will be a short, somewhat shameful chapter in the history of science, and grad students will write theses on how it could have all been avoided if only.

    Perhaps — and this is something that all of the skeptics on this list need to openly recognize as well, or else you are indeed just as dogmatic and religious as the hockey team — the AGW >>hypothesis<< will have proven to be true, and some fraction of the world's global mean temperature will be directly attributable to the increase in CO_2. Perhaps that increase will have had bad effects that outweigh its good ones. Perhaps it will have had good effects that outweigh the bad ones — if we begin a Maunder-type solar minimum and global temperatures try to DROP by 1-2C, a 1-2C CO_2 enhanced warming might be just what we need to stay "normal", whatever that means.

    The important thing to do is keep an open mind, one that does indeed change its degree of belief as OBJECTIVE evidence is accumulated that supports or does not support any given hypothesis, including AGW. The relatively UNBIASED temperature records, reconstructions that predate IPCC 1 and MBH altogether, show an entirely believable temperature increase from the LIA onward, one that is fairly clearly associated with a significant change in solar activity over that time up to the 9000 year 20th century Grand Maximum. That same time frame coincides with a steady increase in anthropogenic CO_2 in the atmosphere. PERHAPS some fraction of the former is caused by the latter — I rather think it has been. Roy Spencer, somebody that seems fairly rational about the whole thing, estimates order of 0.5C, but even if one goes to 1C it hardly implies dire consequences UNLESS you simultaneously assert a large climate sensitivity that just isn't there; it makes no sense. If our climate didn't have neutral to negative relative sensitivity, it would be even more unstable than it already is, unstable enough to run away to catastrophe without our help.

    This is one thing that the climatologists really could learn from physicists. If there is a "hole" into the phase space of possibilities (state configurations) that leads to disaster, sooner or later random chance will carry your system into that hole and the disaster will occur. The fact that no such catastrophe has occurred in the past is thus de facto evidence that there is no such hole. It is why one shouldn't lose any sleep when people argue that the next generation of supercollider will create micro black holes and the earth will collapse into them, or the explosion of a nuclear bomb will "ignite the atmosphere" and turn the earth into a star.

    Cosmic rays hit the earth every day with more energy than we will EVERY create in an accelerator. Asteroid collisions create temperatures and pressures EVERY bit as large as those in a nuclear bomb. If there was a catastrophic hole in the space of possibilities, we would have long since fallen in, so there is no such hole. If there was a catastrophic hole in climate such that a mere doubling of (very low concentrations of) atmospheric CO_2 would "veniform" the planet, transforming it into a hot hell-hole of desert and drought, it would have happened long, long ago and we'd still be there.

    rgb

  134. Robert Brown says:

    “This touches on another important point that I never see addressed. As CO2 concentrations increase, the absorption of IR at ground level only increases logarithmically since the principal spectral lines are all saturated and only the wings and very weak lines come into play. But at the altitude you describe as “the blinds become transparent” the radiation to space by the CO2 increases linearly with concentration since it will always occur from the strongest spectral lines. The net effect should be extra cooling of the atmosphere, not extra heating.”

    Or, as the good old 8-ball used to say “Answer cloudy, try again later”

    We seem so utterly terrified of acknowledging that the system is really rather complex and that we might not KNOW how to construct an accurate model of the effects of atmospheric CO_2 from the top to the bottom of the atmosphere (where they are likely to be very different at different levels). Down low, UHI suggest that there is quite a lot of anthropogenic LOCAL WARMING caused by CO_2 and water vapor and anthropogenic causes like paving parking lots. I am a very strong believer in ALW.

    That sounds scary and bad for the globe until you realize that land is only some 30% of the surface of the globe, that one whole continent and major parts of several others are more or less unpopulated because they are too cold, too hot, too dry, too mountainous, and that even in the most populated countries, the bulk of the population lives in something like 20-10% of the available land space. For every square kilometer of urban heat island, there are perhaps 100 square kilometers of countryside, desert, mountain, ocean, lake, icepack, forest. Too bad, really, that MOST of the thermometers that have contributed to the global temperature record up to around 40 years ago were located in populated areas if not cities.

    Beyond that, we don’t really know enough to build really good MODELS of global heat trapping due to CO_2. The models one ends up with depend too strongly on what you put into them, and that in turn reflects your beliefs. We don’t have the data needed to build models that don’t depend on belief and assumption, and we don’t have any laboratory where we can test the models we build outside of the earth itself. And for better or worse, the GCMs have no skill; they simply don’t WORK to explain the past or predict the future temperature of the planet (assuming that one could get something approximating agreement on the temperature series oin the past that they are SUPPOSED to be fitting. They cannot explain the simplest of things — like why northern and southern average temperatures don’t behave the same way, like the MWP or LIA or Dalton miminum, like ALL of the thermal fluctuations visible in the thermal record of the Holocene, or over the last 5 million years of the current “ice age”. 5 million years ago, the world — which WAS warm, globally warm — began to cool, cool enough to flip into a series of period of severe glaciation interrupted by relatively brief interglacials. We don’t know why this happened. We couldn’t have predicted that it was going to happen. We cannot predict when, or why, it might stop and warm up again. We don’t know if the current warming isn’t an early signal that this entire 5 million year epoch is coming to an end because of things WAY beyond our control that have nothing whatsoever to do with CO_2.

    Overall, our ignorance vastly exceeds our knowledge when it comes to the climate. We don’t even do all that well with the weather, and the weather is easy compared to the climate (the latter is in some sense the integral of the former). There are KNOWN timescales as long as 1000 years in the heat transport mechanisms that contribute to climate, and climate is the result of chaotic dynamics where small fluctuations sometimes amplify over time to dominate future state — and we don’t know the times over which these fluctuations are stored and amplify!

    It’s a shame — there is so very much good, interesting science that could be done here if one could lose the politics and the confirmation bias and the cherrypicking and the “saving the earth” crap. To REALLY save the earth, it helps to understand it, and we have a long, long ways to go before we do.

    rgb

  135. Smokey says:

    Robert Brown,

    Going by basic human nature, it is very unlikely that an outside hacker leaked the emails, because some were selectively withheld. Probably to protect the leaker, or threatening to blackmail the principals with even more damning emails in case he was identified. Why would a casual hacker post most, but not all the emails? It’s pretty clear that it was done by an insider.

    Michael Mann is an arrogant little pussy who suddenly realized he’d gotten a lot of power and influence following the IPCC publication of his hokey stick chart. In both Climategate email dumps we can see that he lorded it over any perceived opposition, and stepped on a lot of toes in the process. It is only natural that someone with the knowledge and access to stick it back to him would do what FOIA did.

  136. kim2ooo says:

    Robert Brown says:
    November 27, 2011 at 10:53 am
    ……………………… ” ]

    Good read!

    How about a guest post?

  137. Theo Goodwin says:

    J Martin says:
    November 27, 2011 at 9:44 am

    “Has anyone got any ideas to help rehabilitate the team to become useful members of society ?”

    The first step is to give each of them a lengthy treatment for testosterone poisoning. Mann would need surgery.

  138. Gail Combs says:

    pat says on November 26, 2011 at 6:13 pm

    o/t but the MSM’s refusal to expose the public to the contents of Climategate II emails is nothing short of a disgrace:
    __________________________________
    Richard Sharpe says:
    November 27, 2011 at 10:21 am
    Which gives us an opportunity to point out to people just how irrelevant the MSM are, n’est pas?
    ___________________________________
    If the truth of this hoax (with details) ever does make it to the general public, the MSM is going to be in really deep Kimchi. Newspapers are already in financial difficulties Tell me how the TAX PAYER supported BBC is going to weather this hoax if and when their active collusion surfaces.

    It was fine and they could silence sceptics up until Climategate 1.0, then things started falling apart but they recovered. Then Climategate 2.0 hit. Once all of this extra material has been raked through it is going to be real hard to bury the truth a second time.

    The August 3, 2011 Rasmussen poll showed “69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming …” http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/69_say_it_s_likely_scientists_have_falsified_global_warming_research

    Give it another six months for these emails to impact and I wonder what a new poll will show?

    A more current poll (November 23, 2011) “Sixty percent (60%) of Likely U.S. Voters at least somewhat favor building the pipeline which President Obama has delayed until at least 2013 because of environmental concerns. Just 24% are opposed. …” http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/november_2011/60_favor_building_keystone_xl_pipeline

    And just out of curiosity…

    Support for Phasing Out U.S. Nuclear Plants Down to 29%
    May 23, 2011

    Japan continues to deal with the aftermath of the devastating earthquake and tsunami in March that caused an historic-level nuclear disaster. With problems continuing at the Fukushima nuclear plant, Americans remain concerned about nuclear power plant safety at home but aren’t quite ready to phase out those plants just yet. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/japan/support_for_phasing_out_u_s_nuclear_plants_down_to_29

    42% Favor More U.S. Nuclear Power Plants
    Friday, April 15, 2011

    Most voters remain concerned about the safety of nuclear power plants in this country, but support for building new plants in America appears to have rebounded slightly even as the nuclear crisis in Japan continues. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/42_favor_more_u_s_nuclear_power_plants

    Looks like Fukushima, despite MSM hysteria has not completely torpedoed the Nuclear industry. Support is down from the 65% of the general population favoring of New Nuclear Plants in 2004 http://www.nei.org/filefolder/publicopinion_04-06.pdf

    The US voters polled do not seem to be as brainwashed as some might hope.

    I think it helps to keep an eye on what the public actually thinks because it is not the same as what we see in the news reporting.

  139. Dave Springer says:

    Robert Brown says:
    November 27, 2011 at 10:53 am

    “NOW the thing about such email servers is that they can EASILY be set up to place a COPY of EVERY email passing through into a continuous stream file – this is simply a file the can be used later as an audit trail. The users of the system do not even know that every email sent and received has had a copy stashed. Pulling such a file apart later is a tedious and boring process, but quite possible.

    My speculation is that this is what has happened.”

    As a 25 year Unix sysadmin (as well as physicist) I would disagree. None of this is standard of practice, or common, or likely.
    =====================================================================

    Say what? As a 35 year veteran in the computer networking world I have to say this is really easy to do and quite common in industry. I’ve no idea how common it is in academia where principle may override CYA and corporate espionage concerns. Perhaps your experience isn’t quite as broad as you imagine it to be.

    Here’s how it’s commonly done. Even found a video tutorial for you:

    Two maxims are applicable here, rgb, that I learned decades ago.

    1) The network never forgets.
    2) Never put anything in an email you wouldn’t want to see appear in the newspaper.

    Had these yahoos (Jones, Briffa, Mann, Santer, Schneider, etc.) any real experience in intranet or internet they’d know about the two maxims above and surely I’m not repeating them for your benefit but rather for the benefit of others reading this. The hockey team pikers learned the hard way.

  140. _Jim says:

    Gail Combs says on November 27, 2011 at 10:06 am

    [1] If Jones can not even run Excel, I VERY much doubt he was running Unix or any other of those more difficult languages.

    [2] That is why “BASIC” was invented. A simple language for us dumb scientists to use. I had a ONE HOUR lecture on BASIC during my training in undergrad Chemistry in 1970.

    To nit pick:
    [1] “UNIX” is an operating system not a language. Under UNIX a number of native utilities as well as various installed programming languages (e.g. FORTRAN, COBOL, C etc) and environments (shells) are available.

    [2] BASIC was not so much ‘invented’ as developed over time at Dartmouth as part of a ‘bigger picture’ for interactive usage (i.e. a ‘time haring’ environment among several users) of their computer hardware.

    Initially BASIC was developed as a compiled language (at Dartmouth, and later elsewhere as an interpreted language) *BUT* Dartmouth went one step further and had created an environment for BASIC that was part of the “Dartmouth Time Sharing System” (DTSS) where BASIC was natively supported via interactive OS (operating system) commands (e.g. NEW, OLD, LIST, SAVE, RUN, etc); note these commands differ form statements *within* BASIC (e.g. DEF, DIM, FOR, NEXT, GOSUB, etc. as well as arithmetic and comparison operators and various functions).

    More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_BASIC

    .

  141. J Martin says:

    Robert Brown.

    Nice post.

    Re the UNIX stuff. What about Rsync as a candidate. It’d be rather obvious to any sysadmin, but as it was just a backup server it may have hardly if ever been looked at. Indeed, Rsync may have already have been on the server. Though I guess there are endless ways to do it.

    With any luck the people advising the police are the people wot dun it. I would think the day the police make an arrest the missing password will enter the public domain. If it was an internal thing then the police have a chance of pinning it on somebody in which case the password should immediately become public knowledge. But if the job was external, especially if foreign, (perhaps a media organisation ?) the police will get nowhere and then we will just have to wait until FOIA.org decide to release the password.

    Re co2 physics. I have seen two physics papers on the internet that both conclude that co2 has no warming effect whatsoever, and that if anything it may have a cooling effect. Degree level maths and beyond. I’ll try and find links. Though others here may have such links more to hand.

  142. Dave Springer says:

    Gail Combs says:
    November 27, 2011 at 11:50 am

    The economics of nuclear power is its own torpedo. It’s just too expensive compared to coal and natural gas. France has the largest percentage of nuclear generated electricity in the world at almost 80%. The average price per kilowatt hour there is $0.19. The average price in the United States, which gets only 20% from nukes is $0.11.

    Got it? Write that down!

  143. Gail Combs says:

    kim2ooo says:
    November 27, 2011 at 11:23 am

    Robert Brown says:
    November 27, 2011 at 10:53 am
    ……………………… ” ]

    Good read!

    How about a guest post?
    _______________________________
    I second that motion… All in favor?

  144. Dave Springer says:

    Gail Combs says:
    November 27, 2011 at 10:06 am

    “If Jones can not even run Excel, I VERY much doubt he was running Unix or any other of those more difficult languages. That is why “BASIC” was invented. A simple language for us dumb scientists to use. I had a ONE HOUR lecture on BASIC during my training in undergrad Chemistry in 1970.”

    Good grief. Excel is an application. Unix is an operating system. Basic is a language. Dumb is on a case by case basis.

  145. davidmhoffer says:

    Dave Springer;
    Say what? As a 35 year veteran in the computer networking world I have to say this is really easy to do and quite common in industry>>>

    So, you must have bee retired now for what, 15 years? Your answer is only partly accurate and totaly obsolete.

    1. The video you link to explains a procedure in the context of an outsourced e-mail system. The CRU ran their own email system. What they could and could not do would depend entirely on two factors. The first would be the specific e-mail software they were running, and the second would be axactly how that e-mail system was implemented. Unless you have knowledge that pertains to both of these issues, you cannot say how easy, difficult, or even possible, any particular approach to preserving email might be.

    2. The technique described in your video would be of little or no use in any venue with the volume of email that CRU would generate. Logging all incming and outgoing email to a single account would create a single email box with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of entries. Just opening the folder would take hours, perhaps days, let alone searching it for keywords in anything amounting to a timely fashion. Further, we can likely surmise that this is in fact NOT what was done as the various e-mails refer to the end users themselves searching their personal email rather than the compliance officers searching all the CRU email.

    3. Complance law and FOIA law and privacy law all overlap to some extent. The techniques suggested in your video do not meet the legal standards for any of these, in private organizations or academic ones.

    4. In general, anyone who runs central comuter systems of any sort is aware (or ought to be) of the basics of regular backup to protect against data loss. This applies to email in spades. In more modern email systems, archive software is run in addition to backup systems. In the case of a “hacker” trying to make copies en masse of an email system, the backup and archive systems would be a far easier target for someone on the “inside” than would be the email system itself.

  146. Gail Combs says:

    _Jim says:
    November 27, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    Gail Combs says on November 27, 2011 at 10:06 am
    ____________________________
    Jim, I stand corrected, but then I am “Computer Challenged” I think many of these guys in my age range may also be “Computer challenged” and relied on young grad students to do the actual work. Hiring the 12yr old computer savvy nephew as it were…. Come to think of it the last company I worked for DID hire a 16 yr old high school student to do a lot of the computer work and that company was a multi-million dollar corporation selling for over $150 per share.

  147. davidmhoffer says:

    Dave Springer;
    France has the largest percentage of nuclear generated electricity in the world at almost 80%. The average price per kilowatt hour there is $0.19. The average price in the United States, which gets only 20% from nukes is $0.11.
    Got it? Write that down!>>>

    Yes, the retail price of something is a 100% accurate indicator of the cost of production. NOT!

    Gasoline costs more than twice as much in France as it does in the US. Are you seriously going to argue that a refinery in France costs more than twice as much to operate as one in the US? Did you even bother to compare costs at point of production in order to eliminate factors such as taxation regimes and environmental regulation that can substantively alter the end user price? Did you break down the other sources used in the total average to eliminate the cost advantage available in North America from hydro?

    France exports a lot of that nuclear generated electricity. Are you suggesting that they sell it at a loss? Or perhaps you are suggesting their customers are so stupid that they pay more money for nuclear generated electricity than they do from other sources?

    “write that down” indeed. NOT!

  148. J Martin says:

    Dave Springer

    I was surprised that you reckoned that the price of French electricity was so high. So I looked it up

    http://bleuciel.edf.com/abonnement-et-contrat/les-prix/les-prix-de-l-electricite/tarif-bleu-47798.html#acc52401

    and got $0.16 twice as high as I was expecting. I’m sure when I was visiting a friend in France two years ago that it was half that amount. I remember that she got her electricity from the same company in France that I got mine from in England and her cost per kwh was half mine then.

    Perhaps the French electricity companies are milking their customers for whatever they can get. Or perhaps they also now have a windmill tax.

    $0.11 that’s cheap. Diesel here is £1.40 per litre. But what annoys me most as we approach a series of cold winters is that the cost of wholesale gas in the US has halved, but over here in the UK they are putting up gas and electricity prices, claiming that the cost of wholesale gas has increased. Yet we know that a there is a vast amount of readily accessible shale gas here.

    Time we had a bitterly cold winter followed by a general election, and we can vote out some of the religious co2 muppets that pose as members of parliament.

  149. Gail Combs says:

    Dave Springer says:
    November 27, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    Gail Combs says:
    November 27, 2011 at 10:06 am

    “If Jones can not even run Excel, I VERY much doubt he was running Unix or any other of those more difficult languages. That is why “BASIC” was invented. A simple language for us dumb scientists to use. I had a ONE HOUR lecture on BASIC during my training in undergrad Chemistry in 1970.”

    Good grief. Excel is an application. Unix is an operating system. Basic is a language. Dumb is on a case by case basis.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Dave,
    Excel is EASY even for a computer dummy like me. If you can handle a computer operating system like Unix, especially the older version, then Excel should be an absolute SNAP. All it takes is a bit of poking around. You do not even have to take a course or read a book to be able to deal with Excel.

    I think what a lot of you are missing is that those with degrees dating pre-1975-ish do not have the bone deep computer skills that those growing up with home PCs have. We forget the ready access to computers really did not happen until the mid 1980’s and the era of cheap PCs, before that is was Mainframes and the first to get access to new technoligy were the bean counters. Also once you become a teaching professor your GRAD students do the actual work at your direction. You are better off thinking of these guys as mid level managers because that is what they actually are.

    That is the point I was trying to make but messed up, sorry.

  150. Dave Springer says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    November 27, 2011 at 12:37 pm

    You ignorance is showing again, as usual. A record of emails going back 10+ years isn’t captured on routine server backups. These at best capture only what individuals have chosen to save. Archiving all emails whether individuals choose to save them or not is pretty common in commercial settings and it doesn’t matter if you own the mail server all you need is adminstrative rights and then there are many ways to do it so your lecture about the video tutorial using an external mail provider (gmail in his example) is irrelevant.

    You’re right my experience is dated but both my son and son-in-law are certified IT gurus so I’m pretty much still in the loop. FOIA acts now force archiving of emails for predefined periods of time. My wife runs a small medical practice. You wouldn’t believe the regulatory burdens on IT in her little office for HIPPA compliance. It’s awful. Anyhow, its worse now than in the past because corporate and government entities are required by law to archive email – it’s no longer a choice – although in my experience it was usually done to aid in potential litigation.

    Please stop talking out of your butt. It only makes you look stupid and makes me waste time correcting you.

  151. Dave Springer says:

    Gail Combs says:
    November 27, 2011 at 1:01 pm

    “Excel is EASY even for a computer dummy like me. If you can handle a computer operating system like Unix, especially the older version, then Excel should be an absolute SNAP.”

    This is like you saying that if I can grow tomatoes then it should be snap breeding horses. The one provides very little insight into the other and no one familiar with both would say such a thing.

  152. Keith Sketchley says:

    MMM – someone should run that Photoshop alteration detective routine on that photo, the face looks familiar. ;-)

  153. The economics of nuclear power is its own torpedo. It’s just too expensive compared to coal and natural gas. France has the largest percentage of nuclear generated electricity in the world at almost 80%. The average price per kilowatt hour there is $0.19. The average price in the United States, which gets only 20% from nukes is $0.11.

    The nuclear power plants in the U.S. have an estimated cost per kilowatt hour across the fleet of $.0183 per kwh, cheaper than coal. The Palos Verde plant in Arizona has a cost per kw/hr at $.0123 per kw/h

    Look the numbers up.

  154. I have submitted several experiments for consideration that would measure specific model parameters, no USAF interest. No one wants to open Pandora’s box.

    I would bet quite a lot that the USAF already has the numbers, based upon decades of “upper atmospheric research”. I have a book by DARPA and the University of Michigan from 1964 that I found in a used book store that goes through a lot of what they knew back then. It is a quite interesting read.

  155. davidmhoffer says:

    Dave Springer;
    You ignorance is showing again, as usual. A record of emails going back 10+ years isn’t captured on routine server backups.>>>

    Yes it is. Standard backup architectures are daily incremental and weekly full written to an off server media such as tape. How long back emails can be recovered is entirely dependant upon the data retention plicy of the organization. If they retain their backup tapes for ten years, then any email that was backed up ten years ago can still be recovered.

    Dave Springer;
    These at best capture only what individuals have chosen to save.>>>

    Wrong. They capture all data that the backup system is designed to capture, regardless of of what the end users do or don’t do.

    Dave Springer;
    Archiving all emails whether individuals choose to save them or not is pretty common in commercial settings and it doesn’t matter if you own the mail server all you need is adminstrative rights and then there are many ways to do it so your lecture about the video tutorial using an external mail provider (gmail in his example) is irrelevant.>>>

    My point was that the methodology demonstrated in your video is not practical from a technology perspective and doesn’t meet the legal reqquirements of compliance law, privacy law, or FOIA requirements.

    Dave Springer;
    You’re right my experience is dated but both my son and son-in-law are certified IT gurus so I’m pretty much still in the loop.>>>

    Your experience is not only dated, it was plain wrong and doesn’t apply to anything in the context of the email systems at CRU and CG1 or CG2. Having a son or a son in law “in the business” means nothing for your competency, and everything you write is either wrong or very wrong or just plain misleading.

    Dave Springer;
    My wife runs a small medical practice. You wouldn’t believe the regulatory burdens on IT in her little office for HIPPA compliance. It’s awful.>>>

    It is quite manageable if you understand the regulatory requirements, how email systems are architected, and what tool sets are available to simplify administration of these. Your wife needs to get in a consultant who has experience in these areas which clearly your son and son in law do not have or I presume they would have helped her with it already. There are also service providers who specialize in provisioning email and other administrative systems to small healthcare offices that include the implementation of the required compliance systems.

    Dave Springer;
    Anyhow, its worse now than in the past because corporate and government entities are required by law to archive email – it’s no longer a choice – although in my experience it was usually done to aid in potential litigation. >>>

    Wrong. The law in the Unites States requires that companies have a data retention policy and adhere to it. This may include archive systems as a method of meeting the data retention policy. Most of the financial justification for archive systems before Sarbanes-Oxley (commonly called SOX) came into force in the United States was cost reduction as it allowed older email to be removed from the email system and housed instead on lower cost storage media such as low performance hard drives and/or arrays, or media such as tape and optical media. After SOX, the additional capabilities of most archive software to respond to court ordered search as well as FOIA requests made the business case to implement archive systems in support of compliance and litigation requirements even more attractive.

    Dave Springer;
    Please stop talking out of your butt. It only makes you look stupid and makes me waste time correcting you>>>

    The largest email system I ever built was 200,000 users. The most complex compliance project I ever did was for a $5 Billion per year private company with operations in 22 countries. The largest backup system I ever built was for a medical organization with 20 hospitals, over 100 secondary care facilities and 28,000 users. Oops, that was the largest one that was HIPPA compliant. My largest ever involved a provincial government and a tape library that at the time (about 5 years ago) was the 2nd largest tape library every deployed in the world. The most secure data protection system I ever was involved in was for a NATO organization that required CIA Orangebook B2 class security and was active in combat operations for the war in Bosnia.

    Frankly Dave, your arrogance and ignorant debating style is beginning to wear thin. I’ve responded to you with civility, and facts. You want to argue from authority, then read a few snippets from my background and experience above. You really want to put your credentials up against mine? If you really want to take the gloves off, by all means. Of course, I’m not a circus clown (or was it a rodea clown? I forget) that you can challenge to a fist fight and then not show up. Nor do I shoot my mouth off about what a good scienist I am when I’m just a bully moderator at Uncommon Descent where RC like moderator practices are used to advance the “intelligent design” pretend science as a cover for pushing religion. BTW, I was doing cpu design win work for Intel when you were programming primitive graphics systems for Coleco. I was doing design work on military command and control systems for naval battle ships and system control for communications satellites about the time you were proudly proclaiming that the Dell desk tops you were marketing had the best Quake benchmarks on the market.

    Stuff your head back up your butt sir, because that’s where it belongs.

  156. One of the crucial assumptions seems to be that CO2 is “uniform” through out the atmosphere. As a chemist who dealt with real world mixing problems in industry, I have a major problem with that assumption.

    Can you shed any light on that point???

    From what I understand wet chemists have found considerable variation in CO2 concentrations in laboratory experiments, from the low 200’s to the 500 ppm range. Indeed early measurements of CO2 atmospheric concentration were done by wet chemists and they have major variations in concentration. In the 1964 DARPA book that I referenced in a previous email I read that the military’s measurements of CO2 concentrations found that below 100 meters altitude there is a wide variance in CO2 levels that would tend to confirm the work of wet chemists.

    If this is true, and have have no reason to not believe this as it is from two separate disciplines of experimental findings, then the computer models have a major problem when assuming uniformity, especially at the crucial ground/atmosphere interface.

    I think that Anthony had something on this here on WUWT a couple of years ago and I know that Chris Monckton was interested in this as well.

  157. Dave Springer says:

    J Martin says:
    November 27, 2011 at 12:56 pm

    “and got $0.16 twice as high as I was expecting.”

    I’m going by 2009 worldwide prices from a table in Wikedpedia which is $0.19. Point still stands as that’s still 50% higher than US price.

    “I’m sure when I was visiting a friend in France two years ago that it was half that amount. I remember that she got her electricity from the same company in France that I got mine from in England and her cost per kwh was half mine then.”

    Progressive tax rate would be my guess. If you use very little you pay a very low rate. Some states, notably California, are like that in the U.S.

    “Perhaps the French electricity companies are milking their customers for whatever they can get. Or
    perhaps they also now have a windmill tax.”

    I think it’s the government doing the milking.

    “$0.11 that’s cheap.”

    Not as cheap as eastern Europe.

    “Diesel here is £1.40 per litre.”

    Highway robbery. Canada is like that too and has been for as long as I can remember. It’s less than half that here. Taxes again. It’s no mystery to most of us conservative small government yanks why Europe’s economy is going down the tubes. The only mystery to us is how it lasted this long without collapsing. Socialism doesn’t work and that’s the direction western Europe has been heading in for at least a few decades. Eastern Europe on the other hand has been going in the opposite direction. Which has shown the greatest improvement? Thirty or even twenty years ago I’d have never imagined that eastern Europe would become better allies than western Europe but by golly I’ve changed my mind since then. Eastern Europeans have a little more appreciation for self-rule under some flavor of democracy I guess after having lived without it for so long.

    “But what annoys me most as we approach a series of cold winters is that the cost of wholesale gas in the US has halved, but over here in the UK they are putting up gas and electricity prices, claiming that the cost of wholesale gas has increased. Yet we know that a there is a vast amount of readily accessible shale gas here.”

    What can I say? You’re still some form of representative democracy, right? You get exactly the government that you elect. We’re in process of housecleaning right now. It only took a couple years for the consequential reality of liberal majority to make itself evident. Stuff happens. Last time a mistake like this was made was Jimmy Carter. Every generation has to make the mistake one time I guess.

    “Time we had a bitterly cold winter followed by a general election, and we can vote out some of the religious co2 muppets that pose as members of parliament.”

    I hope so.

  158. And to be honest, if this were so simple an experiment to perform, and if it were to validate the AGW I would assume that it would have been done and published. My guess from the fact that it hasn’t been published is that maybe it has been done but didn’t validate the hypothesis and so has been suppressed.

    I think that suppression is a strong word. In my NASA world which is dominated by planetary scientists, the science missions are all geared toward answering planetary science questions and the funding goes to planetary scientists who want to answer those questions. It is a fairly closed loop fraternity and this is the reason that for those of us who’s focus is the economic development of the Moon and solar system, we almost never get our desired missions funded.

    I think that the same thing is afoot in the climatology area. It is dominated by these paleo types and of course they want paleo studies funded, which funds people who are of like mind and who want like questions answered.

    Science is not some large amorphous entity with a multidisciplinary approach to answering questions and or solving problems. This is one of my major problems with the climate alchemists as I am now calling them in that this closed community thinks that they can answer all the questions AND provide guidance for policy makers on what to do. These guys should have no role whatsoever in writing these IPCC TAR documents. It should be done by a multidisciplinary JASON type group who can see beyond the narrow focus of the team.

  159. davidmhoffer says:

    Anthony;
    If you’d like, I could knock off a high level article on email systems, backup and archive systems, and compliance intended for a lay audience in a few days if that would be of value for your readership in terms of understanding the terminology and issues regarding CG1 and CG2. Just send me an email.

    DaveH

  160. Dave Springer says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    November 27, 2011 at 2:46 pm

    “Yes it is. Standard backup architectures are daily incremental and weekly full written to an off server media such as tape. How long back emails can be recovered is entirely dependant upon the data retention plicy of the organization. If they retain their backup tapes for ten years, then any email that was backed up ten years ago can still be recovered.”

    So ya think some hacker outside the university or even a whistle blower on the inside had access to offsite tape backups? And could pore through them assembling an archive of email spanning over a decade? That would take an awful lot of effort and an awful lot of tapes.

    You just can’t help yourself digging a deeper and deeper hole of stupidity for yourself can you?

  161. Dave Springer says:

    Dennis Ray Wingo says:
    November 27, 2011 at 3:08 pm

    I think that suppression is a strong word. In my NASA world which is dominated by planetary scientists, the science missions are all geared toward answering planetary science questions and the funding goes to planetary scientists who want to answer those questions. It is a fairly closed loop fraternity and this is the reason that for those of us who’s focus is the economic development of the Moon and solar system, we almost never get our desired missions funded.

    Was there ever a time when you did get those missions funded? This was never more than a dream from what I can determine that made great science fiction plots but never seriously moved towards science fact. I shared the dream and maybe even still held onto it as late as the end of the Apollo program but then it became pretty apparent that LEO was the only thing that was going to be developed and that was strictly for spy and communications satellites. Even the space stations turned out to be sideshow attractions. Now even the space shuttle is gone too. Very sad.

  162. Was there ever a time when you did get those missions funded? This was never more than a dream from what I can determine that made great science fiction plots but never seriously moved towards science fact.

    We got Lunar Prospector funded. I was one of the very early members of that team. There has been a tremendous advance in this science in the last couple of years with the results of the Indian Chandrayaan mission and the NASA Lunar Recon Orbiter mission. The community has finally proven pretty much beyond a reasonable doubt that there is billions of tons of water on the Moon and my own pet hypothesis of the plentiful nature of Platinum Group Metals on the Moon has received bolstering as well.

    We are going to have a major move into space, this time from the private sector.

  163. davidmhoffer says:

    Dave Springer;
    So ya think some hacker outside the university or even a whistle blower on the inside had access to offsite tape backups? And could pore through them assembling an archive of email spanning over a decade? That would take an awful lot of effort and an awful lot of tapes.
    You just can’t help yourself digging a deeper and deeper hole of stupidity for yourself can you?>>>

    I knew you would be stupid enough to take your head back out of your *ss.

    You made bold statements as to how email systems and backup systems and archive systems work that were completely false, and I corrected your blatant misinformation. Rather than admit you spouted off in total and complete ignorance, you instead come back with a saracstic remark about how you think… that I think… the hacker or whistle blower got the email.

    If you are so stupid as to continue announcing to the world the depth of your arrogance and incompetance on the subject, then I shall be gald to oblige you.

    In a best practices backup implementation that relies upon tape as the long term storage media, data is copied to a local tape library. If possible, the tape library is located outside the main computer room itself in order that any disaster that is limited to the computer room leaves the tape library intact and available as a first line of recovery resource. The tape library while possibly being outside of the computer room itself, must still be close enough that the network communications links can operate properly. In the case of fibre channel, that may be several kilometers while in the case of ethernet it would be measured in hundreds of meters.

    The “off site” copy I referred to in my previous comment was in regard to a SECOND tape copy. This SECOND copy is sent “off site” to a storage facility at a distance from the main computer room large enough to remain intact in the event of a disaster with sufficient radius to destroy both the computer room and the tape library.

    Returning now to the point I made about data retention policies, best practice is for the tapes retained in the local library to be retained for a period identical to those retained in the off site facility. So, Mr Smart *SS, whatever tapes exist off site ALSO exist ON SITE and will have all the emails ever backed up and still retained based on the organization’s data retention policy.

    You’ve got poo in your hair. Go wash up.

  164. Dave Springer says:

    @DavidMHoffer

    “Frankly Dave, your arrogance and ignorant debating style is beginning to wear thin.”

    Oh I feel so bad now!

    “I’ve responded to you with civility, and facts. You want to argue from authority, then read a few snippets from my background and experience above. You really want to put your credentials up against mine? If you really want to take the gloves off, by all means. Of course, I’m not a circus clown (or was it a rodea clown? I forget) that you can challenge to a fist fight and then not show up. Nor do I shoot my mouth off about what a good scienist I am when I’m just a bully moderator at Uncommon Descent where RC like moderator practices are used to advance the “intelligent design” pretend science as a cover for pushing religion. BTW, I was doing cpu design win work for Intel when you were programming primitive graphics systems for Coleco. I was doing design work on military command and control systems for naval battle ships and system control for communications satellites about the time you were proudly proclaiming that the Dell desk tops you were marketing had the best Quake benchmarks on the market.”

    LOL! Awesome. Mad skillz! Usually some sort of Ninja powers go along with that. Did you train with Bruce Lee?

    Don’t forget to search usenet for me. You missed some of my best and longest flamage. The OpenGL wars in alt.games.programmer.

    Funny thing though. I can’t find any reference to you in your claimed area of expertise. That’s no great surprise. I mean I’m not any great shakes but I do at least show up in google scholar search.

    Feel free to provide some verifiable links to what you actually did for a living. I’m prepared to believe you were a manager which is what you claimed in another thread. That doesn’t mean you know jack diddly squat about the technology and your writing here certainly reflects that.

  165. davidmhoffer says:

    Dave Springer;
    Feel free to provide some verifiable links to what you actually did for a living. I’m prepared to believe you were a manager which is what you claimed in another thread. That doesn’t mean you know jack diddly squat about the technology and your writing here certainly reflects that.>>>

    I don’t debate people with poo in their hair, and I have zero interest in “proving” my credentials to you. I’ve never shot my mouth off about my credentials like that in several years of commenting on this blog and I only did so to try and bring you to some sense of reality. I don’t argue from authority, nor do I denigrate those I disagree with by make disgusting insinuations. I don’t challenge people to fist fights and then not show up. I don’t threaten to shoot people with the gun I carry if they do show up. I don’t make pronouncements about what people do and do not know based on comments that are entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

    I’ve added one more “don’t” to my list.

    I don’t respond to complete jerks. Consider yourself on “ignore”.

  166. Dave Springer says:

    @DavidMHoffer

    If no continuous email archive was being maintained in a fashion similar to the method outlined then how many backup tapes would need to be consulted to create a continuous record over a period of ten years? There would be 120 monthly backups. That’s a lot of tape and it still wouldn’t be a continuous archive because it would only capture those emails that hadn’t been deleted by the owners during the previous 30 days. There would be 480 weekly backups and 3,650 daily backups. Pick one of them and describe how a complete email archive over a period of ten years could be reconstructed from it.

    Or just admit that UEA was most likely archiving email separately and purposely for the same paranoid reasons that so many other institutions do it. I don’t particularly care but you might because other people are going to be wondering how someone could, without notice, go through hundreds of individual archives reconstructing the record.

    You mentioned privacy concerns. What legal right to privacy do people have when they are sitting in an office that someone else owns, working at a computer that someone else owns, using an email address that someone else owns, using a network that someone else pays for, and under a contract that everything they do or create relevant to the performance of their job is owned by their employer?
    You are incredibly naive if you think they have any right to email privacy under those conditions. These were all work related correspondences and are implicitely owned by the university. At a minimum for a reasonable expectation of privacy under those conditions you DO NOT USE your employer’s email domain. You use a domain that you pay for yourself.

  167. Dave Springer says:

    @DavidMHoffer

    Random sampling of companies offering email archive solutions:

    http://www.messagesolution.com/Linux_and_UNIX_Email_Servers.htm
    http://www.barracudanetworks.com/ns/products/archiver-overview.php
    http://www.smarsh.com/email-archiving?gclid=CIuf_o6Q2KwCFWJntgod-BjKjA

    There are scores of them competing for the privilege of being your email archive solution.

    A longish discussion of the topic:

    http://climateaudit.org/2010/10/27/did-jones-delete-emails/

    Several mentions of how common it is to archive all emails and discussion of software that finds duplicates of large attachments sent to multiple recipients, strips the duplicates and saves one copy, marks each email to indicate which emails had the attachment, and automatically restores the attachment when the archive is consulted.

    It should be noted that attachments are preserved in the FOIA file although I have not checked to see if there are duplicates of the same attachment. Maybe Hoffer, if he’s done googling me for ad hominem ammunition, can actually exercise some of his mad ninja network skillz to investigate the actual question at hand.

    The UEA claims that the archive was taken from a single backup email server not from periodic backups. The emails span a period of 13 years from 1996 through 2009.

    So, as I suspected and so rudely took DavidMHoffer to school about, these emails didn’t come from periodic backups. That’s just silly. That would be a huge job to extract 13 years of email history from routine periodic server backups. These were taken from a live email backup server. The question is now whether Jones, Briffa, Schneider, and about a score of others kept 13 years worth of emails on purpose or it was just SOP at UEA-CRU to archive email like a million other institutions do and for which a good number of companies produce third party software to assist in the very task. My money’s on the latter and UEA isn’t going to admit that they were keeping copies of all the researcher’s emails. Not telling anyone their email is being routinely archived isn’t uncommon either. There’s no legal compulsion for an institution to inform individual employees what information the institution owns is being retained or discarded. The naivety being displayed by Hoffer in thinking otherwise does not square with his claims of expertise on the subject. Emails are routinely archived and held in a single point of access not scattered across scores periodic tape backups. This done for the express and proverbial purpose of the institution being able to cover its ass (CYA) in case of accusations of sexual harassment, theft, fraud, wrongful termination, or any number of other situations where that may arise where they need to know exactly what transpired.

  168. Dave Springer says:

    @DavidMHoffer

    The clincher. I was right of course. Maybe you’ll learn not to argue with me. For me that’ll be like a dog losing a favority chew toy. Please don’t stop.

    http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf

    This is the official government whitewash investigation into Climategate I.

    My emphasis.

    31. Limited internal communication. We found a lack of understanding within
    University central functions of the presence of extensive, and long duration,
    backups of e-mail and other materials despite these being on a server housed
    within the central Information Technology (IT) facilities
    . Awareness of these
    might have led to much greater challenge of assertions regarding non-availability
    of material by CRU, notably in the case of a subject access request made under the
    DPA for material naming the requesting individual.

  169. Dave Springer says:

    Wow. Who’d a thunk… UEA IT department was keeping extensive, long duration, backups of email on a centralized server housed in the IT department. It seems no one responding to FOIA requests was aware that it was really easy to recover all the email traffic from any individual or group of individuals employed at UEA. And obviously Jones, Briffa, and the rest of the usual suspects had no idea that when they deleted emails from their personal folders this didn’t delete those emails from the unpublicized backup server the IT department was maintaining.

    I’m here to tell you folks that this is COMMON practice. I merely assumed it was done at UEA by a brief review of the circumstances. I put the odds that this was an inside job at a higher confidence level than IPCC assigns to human activity accounting for most of the recent warming within an hour of when I first got wind of it 1999. It’s pretty obvious to anyone who knows what’s actually happening int he real world. It was patently ridiculous to believe this was painstakingly assembled from periodioc backups. This was taken from long term single point of access archives which are a whole different animal than periodic backups. Periodic backups are able able to restore a server to any point it was at in history, or at least at one instant in time each day or whatever interval the backups are taken. These email archives are done differently and few employees are informed it’s happening although if they ask around or read enough policy manuals they might stumble across it. It generally doesn’t go over well with the troops when you tell them they’re being recorded for posterity and things they write in emails could come back to haunt them 20 years later. Not well at all. Trust is a two way street. If you don’t trust me I don’t trust you is usually the way it works. So it’s more or less a don’t ask don’t tell policy when it comes to email archiving.

    So here is my standard advice so YOU don’t get your emails recorded where you work. Get a personal email provider and use that for all correspondence you don’t want the IT department at your company going over for entertainment purposes. They can see it all for company-assigned email addresses. It’s a helluva lot harder for them to eavesdrop on your personal ISP.

  170. _Jim says:

    Dave Springer says November 27, 2011 at 4:26 pm

    Funny thing though. I can’t find any reference to you in your claimed area of expertise. That’s no great surprise. I mean I’m not any great shakes but I do at least show up in google scholar search.

    Perhaps appearing as the sign-off or approval signature in the title blocks on (proprietary, company-owned) engineering drawings (including, but not limited to, design specification, design documentation, test plans and procedures, specification control dwgs, parts lists, requirements, etc) maybe?

    Oh, gee, not Google searchable yet …

    .

  171. davidmhoffer says:

    _Jim;
    Oh, gee, not Google searchable yet …>>>

    Neither is anything CIA Orange Book B2 level security ;-)

    A few months ago I got into a disagreement with a sales engineer on how a particular storage array manufactured by Springer’s former employer would deal with large scale single threaded applications. I said performance would suck (the technical term applicable in my opinion) and she disagreed. After some back and forth I speed dialed a friend of mine who was her boss’s boss’s boss and also in charge of all the SE’s for half of North America. After a short discussion, he told her to be quiet and listen to me. Not as funny as the time the 2IC of NORAD told one of his PM’s to listen to me or be court martialled, but close.

    Sorry, you can’t google either of those either.

  172. sceptical says:

    Physics not discussed? But catastrophic climategate 2 is suppose to be the final nail in the AGW coffin. How can it be the final nail without any physics? Is this catastrophy being overstated on this blog without any physics to back the overstated catastrophy?

  173. davidmhoffer says:

    …and lest anyone think I was slagging the products made by Mr On Ignore’s previous employer, I was not. That vendor has multiple products, and there was a different product they made that was more suitable to the task at hand (in my opinion).

  174. Dave Springer says:

    _Jim says:
    November 27, 2011 at 6:39 pm

    “Perhaps appearing as the sign-off or approval signature in the title blocks on (proprietary, company-owned) engineering drawings (including, but not limited to, design specification, design documentation, test plans and procedures, specification control dwgs, parts lists, requirements, etc) maybe?”

    Hard to say although in my experience managers get their name on a fair share of the patents which originate in their departments. It’s a simple matter of trading favors. I put my boss’ name on a patent he had nothing to do with and it makes him look good and he remembers it when my performance review comes along. It works the same way in academia with publications. To be fair not all companies pursue patents and keep things as trade secrets but Intel sure as hell isn’t one those companies. Dopey claims he was designing CPU’s for Intel. NO ONE who is involved in design work at Intel doesn’t get named on a patent. Whatever he was doing there, if anything, it wasn’t CPU design.

  175. Dave Springer says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    November 27, 2011 at 7:29 pm

    Sorry, you can’t google either of those either.
    =============================================

    How convenient. I was on Bill Gates’ and Gordon Moore’s speed dial but you can’t google those either.

    I guess you’ll just have to defend yourself with being provably correct about what you claim. You know, like I proved I was correct about how the emails weren’t collected from periodic backups. Waving your hands around claiming to be a CIA agent or whatever outlandish claim you’re making now won’t cut it, bubba. Cry why don’t you ya big baby.

  176. Dave Springer says:

    [SNIP: Dave, this really has nothing to do with thread and is making the joint look bad. Can we cease and desist with this line? Please? -REP]

  177. Dave Springer says:

    Oh my. I proved I was right about the emails with a quote from the UK government investigation saying the emails were stored exactly how I figured they were [SNIP: Dave, I asked you nicely. -REP] LOL

  178. G. Karst says:

    Dennis Ray Wingo:

    Thanks for opening a window and bringing in fresh air. It was interesting reading while we are forced to watch David Springer and davidmhoffer kick themselves to pieces.

    As further distraction, you said:

    We are going to have a major move into space, this time from the private sector.

    I assume you mean in the near future. What actual movement do you see in this commercial direction (other than low orbit thrill rides for multi-millionaires). Can you indicate a realistic timeline? GK

  179. Werner Brozek says:

    “Ian W says:
    November 27, 2011 at 3:42 am
    I suggest that you check your assumptions about saturated air and read http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/enthalpy-moist-air-d_683.html and use the formulae there”

    A sentence at the bottom said: “Note! The latent heat due to evaporation of water is the major part of the enthalpy. The sensible heat due to heating evaporated water vapor can be almost neglected.”

    In my post, I was NOT talking about any phase changes. I was assuming for example that you have two 20 liter containers full of dry air. Then you add enough water vapor to one to reach a 4% water vapor concentration. Then you find that it takes about 8% more energy to heat the one with the added water vapor to the same temperature increase as the dry air.

    Your statement: “So the heat energy required to raise that volume of air increases by up to ~10 times.” left me with the impression you were just heating air with water and NOT causing any phase changes with water. I completely agree that incorporating phase changes affects all calculations.

  180. Dave Springer says:

    Dave Springer says:
    November 27, 2011 at 8:52 pm

    [SNIP: Dave, this really has nothing to do with thread and is making the joint look bad. Can we cease and desist with this line? Please? -REP]

    If you snip on a blog that holds itself above censoring you’re not really open. All my comments were about how, where, and why the climategate emails were collected and stored at UEA. I get a little testy when the ignorati force me to prove the obvious. How about thanking me for settling a dispute about an important matter by pointing to an obscure paragraph in the Muir UEA investigation. No one else mentioned it and it’s definitive. Either UEA was incompetent or dishonest in responding to FOIA requests for email correspondence from named individuals. All the information was routinely collected on a central server that could literally be queried using GREP for the responsive information. Yet if we take David Hoffer’s and/or Robert Brown’s word for things we’d be forced to believe that being responsive to the request really was a duecedly difficult job of sorting through 13 years of backup tapes. Maybe you should thank me for spoiling their credibility lest readers here take them seriously in the future. At least Brown didn’t put up a fight. Hoffer begged for a spanking and got one.

    [REPLY: Dave, you are a valued contributor here, but being "open" does not extend to personal vilification. You can check the site policy on that matter if you wish. Your antagonist will be held to the same standard. We really don't want to look like RC or OM, now, do we? -REP]

  181. Dave Springer says:

    [SNIP: Dave, I asked you nicely. -REP]

    You’re getting very, very sleepy. Your eyelids are getting heavy. I’m going to comment backward from ten. When I get to one you’ll be too tired to snip and fall into a deep, deep sleep.

    Ten…

    [REPLY: Sorry, but there will be other moderators on duty even if I ….z z z z z z z

  182. Dave Springer says:

    [REPLY: Dave, you are a valued contributor here, but being "open" does not extend to personal vilification. You can check the site policy on that matter if you wish. Your antagonist will be held to the same standard. We really don't want to look like RC or OM, now, do we? -REP]

    I read the rules. The consequence for being an asshat is getting comments deleted. I have no problem with that. Delete whatever you want. I’m not throwing a hissy fit about it. Holding everyone to the same standard is something that should always be done and often isn’t. It’s pretty much open season around here on characters like Hansen, Gore, Romm, Schmidt, and the rest of the usual suspects. R.Gates, Rattus, Lazy Teenager and many others don’t get treated equally either. What you’re really saying is you’d rather not see infighting among the anti-AGW cheerleaders. I know the drill just don’t expect me to follow it. Every camp has their share of dolts in it and I don’t play favorites. I’m an equal opportunity flamer. I write what I want and you snip what you want. That’s the way it works. Those are the rules.

    Any questions so far?

    You’re not in much danger of being confused with group-think heavily censoring sites like RC or OM but it takes people like me to keep you honest. I’ve been banned on many blogs who claim to entertain all critical views. It’s a real testament to the tolerance here that I haven’t been banned yet. I can drive a saint to swear, or so I’ve been told.

    [REPLY: Not a saint and not swearing. Derailing a thread with OT personal attacks will be snipped. Those are the rules. Thanks. -REP]

  183. I assume you mean in the near future. What actual movement do you see in this commercial direction (other than low orbit thrill rides for multi-millionaires). Can you indicate a realistic timeline? GK

    While it is not getting any publicity companies are sending their own experiments to ISS for processing. That is a small market, today. Soon the Dragon will be going to ISS and that will open that market much wider. The GEO market is going to expand and Google X prize teams, though probably a stunt at this stage, is an amazing thing to have the possibility of the next landing on the Moon being commercial. Ideas like lunar mining are being spoken of in non science fiction settings now as well, based upon the recent findings of the LRO, Chandrayaan, and other missions.

    There is a lot of analog lunar activity starting to build and though it is not public yet, interesting things are happening.

    It is my hope that with the death of the climate scare we can focus more efforts on positive means to move off of the hydrocarbon economy, which means economic development in order to increase the wealth of all of our fellow citizens here on the Earth. This can best be served by exploiting the near infinite wealth of our solar system. That is the positive message to balance the doom and gloom negativity of the last 20 years of the great climate scare.

  184. Dave Springer says:

    Werner Brozek says:
    November 27, 2011 at 9:15 pm

    “A sentence at the bottom said: “Note! The latent heat due to evaporation of water is the major part of the enthalpy. The sensible heat due to heating evaporated water vapor can be almost neglected.”

    Yes. And you aren’t neglecting it.

    “In my post, I was NOT talking about any phase changes.”

    Neither is the Engineering toolbox. Enthalpy is total energy in the system. That includes both latent and sensible heat.

    “I was assuming for example that you have two 20 liter containers full of dry air. Then you add enough water vapor to one to reach a 4% water vapor concentration. Then you find that it takes about 8% more energy to heat the one with the added water vapor to the same temperature increase as the dry air.”

    Specific heat of dry air is approximately 1.0 kJ/kg.
    Specific heat of water vapor is approximately 2.0 kJ/kg.

    Specific heat of moist air (4% water vapor) is ((96*1.0) + (4*2.0))/100 or 1.04.

    I’m not sure how you’re getting an 8% increase. 1.00 is a 1.04 is a 4% increase.

    But it will also make the volume of air in question lighter which will cause it to rise within a parcel of dry air without any change in sensible temperature. If I recall this thread within the thread correctly wasn’t there some mention about the amount of added heat required for convection? Moist air will rise in dry air at the same temperature.

    But the total energy in the moist air is orders of magnitude higher. Latent heat capacity of H2O is awesome. It’s one of best energy transfer fluids you can find which is why there are still steam pipes under the streets of many large cities providing cold weather heating to private and public spaces and the most efficient turbines are steam turbines. The amount of energy transported from the surface to the cloud layer through evaporation with no sensible heating of the atmosphere along the way is humungous and widely under-appreciated. All that latent heat drills straight through greenhouse gases as easily as it goes through non-greenhouse gases.

    I suppose this is a good opportunity to once again point out that the global ocean gives up heat primarily through evaporation and because of that mechanism it is little effected by greenhouse gases. Land surfaces give up heat primarily through radiation and these are significantly effected by greenhouse gases. But since oceans comprise 70% of all surfaces it really relegates the greenhouse effect to only about a third of the role the greenhouse pundits try to attribute to it. It’s not that heat isn’t in the system over the oceans it just isn’t at the surface. It’s just rapidly moved to the cloud layer flattening out the lapse rate between ocean and cloud deck. Once the energy is released by condensation in the cloud deck it’s much closer to the heat sink of cold empty space and thus finds less resistive radiative path in that direction. Meanwhile the greenhouse gases that would otherwise slow cooling and hence raise temperature very near the surface now impede the radiant energy released by condensation in the cloud layer from making its way down to the surface.

    Once you accept this is how the physics works out in the big picture all the observations fall neatly in place. We live on a water world and water has some really unique characteristics that make it far different in the way it warms and cools compared to land. The instrument record that everyone argues about is almost exclusively a land record and a northern hemisphere mid-latitude non-Asian record at that. It’s pretty much just a record of the United States and Wester Europe. Coverage is absymal elsewhere. This is the primary problem with the temperature record. We don’t anything that passes the giggle test for a *global* average temperature until the satellite era beginning in 1979 and that simply isn’t far enough in the past to establish global climate trends. There are numerous known natural warming and cooling cycles in the northern hemisphere that operate over periodic intervals much longer than 30 years and furthermore these cycles are not in constant phase relationships with each other, are little understood, interdependent, and the resulting harmonics make both local and global predictions quite impossible to model which is precisely why the climate change cheerleaders are in a state of vast disarray because they can’t explain why atmospheric CO2 has continued its exponential rise for the past decade but global average temperature stopped rising in lockstep with it.

  185. Dave Springer says:

    [REPLY: Not a saint and not swearing. Derailing a thread with OT personal attacks will be snipped. Those are the rules. Thanks. -REP]

    I understand. Snip away. The next mod to take up the watch may be more or less strict. I don’t try to read minds or figure out who’s got the helm. Most of the time what I wrote tonight wouldn’t get snipped. But that’s okay. I don’t expect the moderators to indistinguishable clones. No hard feelings.

  186. Dave Springer says:

    G. Karst says:
    November 27, 2011 at 9:07 pm

    Dennis Ray Wingo:

    Thanks for opening a window and bringing in fresh air. It was interesting reading while we are forced to watch David Springer and davidmhoffer kick themselves to pieces.
    ========================================================

    Forced? Is someone holding a gun to your head? Try using your arrow key or mouse wheel and scroll past my name to the next one in line. I promise I won’t be offended.

  187. Dave Springer says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    November 27, 2011 at 3:09 pm

    Anthony;
    If you’d like, I could knock off a high level article on email systems, backup and archive systems, and compliance intended for a lay audience in a few days if that would be of value for your readership in terms of understanding the terminology and issues regarding CG1 and CG2. Just send me an email.

    DaveH

    What? Are you the same David Hoffer who wrote the following? The guy who makes the second in command of the North American Radar Defense system threaten to court martial a Provost Marshall for disrespecting you? The guy who called up what must have been a member of the board of directors at Dell to get some little female FAE who disrespected you to “be quiet and listen to you”?.

    A few months ago I got into a disagreement with a sales engineer on how a particular storage array manufactured by Springer’s former employer would deal with large scale single threaded applications. I said performance would suck (the technical term applicable in my opinion) and she disagreed. After some back and forth I speed dialed a friend of mine who was her boss’s boss’s boss and also in charge of all the SE’s for half of North America. After a short discussion, he told her to be quiet and listen to me. Not as funny as the time the 2IC of NORAD told one of his PM’s to listen to me or be court martialled, but close.”

    Surely this ain’t the same guy begging Anthony Watts to let him post an article on this blog?

    Non-sequitur.

    Oh I know! Make one of those awesome phone calls to people in high places and get your article published in the Wall Street Journal or something like that then Anthony will link to it and sing your praises in the process! Oh I have an even better idea! Give Ann Coulter a ring. I mean she takes calls from a couple of right wing professors I know in the Intelligent Design circles so surely she must take your calls too, right? Get her to get you an interview on the Sean Hannity show. You’re just WAY TOO IMPORTANT to be pleading in public for blog space here.

    SO non-sequitur. ROFLMAO

    And REP, notice there was NO name calling involved here. No villification. Just making helpful suggestions to Hoffer for getting a “high level” dissertation of email policies to consider in figuring out what happened at UEA.

    Oh wait. I already gave that dissertation and proved I knew what I was talking about with a direct quote from the Muir report which specifically the emails were stored in the manner and place I assumed along was the case. Nevermind. I guess I wasn’t being helpful after all.

  188. Peter Whale says:

    To Dennis Ray Wingo and Robert Brown they were two of the most enlightening posts I have read of late and the following comments relating to them were of enormous interest. You guys give me a great deal of hope. Thank you.

  189. Myrrh says:

    Dennis Ray Wingo says:
    November 27, 2011 at 3:00 pm
    Gail: “One of the crucial assumptions seems to be that CO2 is “uniform” through out the atmosphere. As a chemist who dealt with real world mixing problems in industry, I have a major problem with that assumption.

    Can you shed any light on that point???”

    From what I understand wet chemists have found considerable variation in CO2 concentrations in laboratory experiments, from the low 200′s to the 500 ppm range. Indeed early measurements of CO2 atmospheric concentration were done by wet chemists and they have major variations in concentration. In the 1964 DARPA book that I referenced in a previous email I read that the military’s measurements of CO2 concentrations found that below 100 meters altitude there is a wide variance in CO2 levels that would tend to confirm the work of wet chemists.

    If this is true, and have have no reason to not believe this as it is from two separate disciplines of experimental findings, then the computer models have a major problem when assuming uniformity, especially at the crucial ground/atmosphere interface.

    I think that Anthony had something on this here on WUWT a couple of years ago and I know that Chris Monckton was interested in this as well.

    ============================================

    I do wish someone with real science expertise would get interested in it.. I’ve been trying to point out that the basic physics of AGW are science fiction, in this one: ‘the CO2 well-mixed in the atmosphere’ is based on the fantasy that oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxide are ideal gases, i.e., that they have no volume or weight and are zipping around at tremendous speeds in empty space knocking into each other in elastic collisions and so, ‘carbon dioxide is uniformly mixed thoroughly in the atmosphere’.

    Seriously, I asked about this of a PhD teaching the subject, and examining on it, he was adamant,(once I got him to admit that CO2 pooled by giving real world examples), that CO2 ‘having pooled on the floor in a room without any work being done to change the conditions (open window, fan) would spontaneously begin diffusing and zipping through the air in the room bashing into the other molecules it would become sooooo thoroughly mixed that it couldn’t become unmixed without work being done’. The examples from the AGWScience Fiction department given to argue this is ‘real physics’ are ‘scent diffusing through a room and ink dropped into a glass of water’. They do not have convection. This is a fictional physics to describe their fictional world, in which radiation rules supreme.

    The AIRS data, which has not been fully released, no lower or top of atmosphere results and no proper detail of the mid which they released a picture or two, came to the conclusion, and oh that bloody suprise again, how surprised they were to find carbon dioxide was not thoroughly mixed, but lumpy.

    I’ve given the story before, wish I could find the link to it.., about the AGWSF-educated scientist who hearing the argument from real physics that molecules have weight and so heavier than air will always sink displacing air and lighter will always rise, and mines in real life are given as examples, decided to go to a mine to check this out. He found that the methane he’d introduced layered at the top of the mine and didn’t diffuse into the air. He couldn’t believe it, sent his team to search for hidden sources which he thought could be adding to the layered at the ceiling and so spoiling the diffusion into well-mixed. They couldn’t find any such source. He concluded that they had missed it..

    This is an absolutely huge teaching from the AGWScience’s production department of fictional/fantasy physics and they have been extremely successful introducing it into main stream education.

    There’s a whole generation of people who think the atmosphere above us is empty space, they have no grasp of the fluid gaseous volume of air above us..

    When you try to explain real physics about this to them they come back with ‘then carbon dioxide would sink into a layer at the low points like the Dead Sea’ or ‘layer as in a cake’ – they have no grasp of the dynamics of life cycles (they exclude the Water Cycle completely in their ‘energy budget’ KT97 and its ilk. But a warning, don’t expect any internal coherence in their explanations, that was never the point of the AGWSF world physics, so for example, if they’re stumped with you rejecting the ‘ideal gas claim’, they’ll give you Brownian motion for CO2 mixing thoroughly, suddenly they have fluid gas volume but exclude CO2 from it.. :)

    They have no sound in their world. They can’t hear you.

  190. They have no sound in their world. They can’t hear you.

    Cargo Cult Science.

    http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/02/CargoCult.pdf

  191. John Whitman says:

    Dennis Ray Wingo says @ G. Karst :
    November 27, 2011 at 10:41 pm

    While it is not getting any publicity companies are sending their own experiments to ISS for processing. That is a small market, today

    There is a lot of analog lunar activity starting to build and though it is not public yet, interesting things are happening.

    Dennis Ray Wingo,

    The amount of private moneys going into private ventures for space based business and habitats are not completely available to the public. Nor should it be.

    Based on discussions that can be Googled . . . . the interest in non-earth business and habitats is accelerating. Therefore one can also reasonably think the amount of private money going to those areas is growing significantly.

    The non-scientific agendas supporting alarming/concernist AGW by CO2 from fossil fuels actually may have stimulated private space development.

    John

  192. davidmhoffer says:

    mods ~ to set the record straight:

    NORAD doesn’t stand for North American Radar Defense, it stands for North America Aerospace Defense Command (Formerly North America Air Defense Command)

    PM in the context of a large IT project stands for Project Manager.

    No civilian “makes” a Lt Colonel with launch control “do” anything he doesn’t want to do.

    I don’t know what an FAE is. I don’t make phone calls into the key technical people in an organization to get people in trouble, I do it to ensure that I have the most accurate technical information possible before making a decision.

    It is not helpful when someone without in depth technical experience in large scale email, backup, and archive systems reads the word “archive” and assumes that it means the same thing as a totally different technology in a totally different technical scenario that he also doesn’t understand very well.

    “design win” for Intel doesn’t mean designing Intel products. It means working with companies who design things and have to choose which components from which manufacturers are most suited to the task.

    Pleading. Begging. LOL. I volunteered.

    I have no patents to my name. If I did, I certainly wouldn’t put my bosses name on them if he did zero work on them just to curry favour with him Doing so would suggest to others that perhaps some of the patents I was named on actually had zero input from me, I was just taking the kudos for someone else’s work in return for giving them a raise later. I wouldn’t want to discredit my own work by doing that.

    I have no academic papers to my name, so google scholar is unlikely to cough up my name.

    I don’t even have a university degree so googling my professional credentials probably won’t work either.

    I don’t know anyone at the board of directors at Dell. If I wanted an accurate technical answer regarding how the kernel code in a time slicing operating systems deals with interrupts from single threaded processes compared to how a time shared operating systems deals with the same issue, I’d be more interested in talking to a kernel engineer familiar with the product then someone on the board of directors.

    It is clearly evident that CRU had an email archive. It is not evident that the archive was used properly to service FOIA requests, in fact the opposite.

  193. G. Karst says:

    Dave Springer says:
    November 27, 2011 at 11:18 pm

    Forced? Is someone holding a gun to your head? Try using your arrow key or mouse wheel and scroll past my name to the next one in line. I promise I won’t be offended.

    Gee Dave, that’s easily fixed:

    It was interesting reading while we are NOT forced to watch David Springer and davidmhoffer kick themselves to pieces.

    I read all of YOUR comments as well as davidmhoffer’s because you are both intelligent and fact filled individuals. I am stimulated by new ideas and perspective. I enjoy spectator fights as much as the next guy. But even boxing matches have an end. If a KO doesn’t end the fight it is called after 3, 4, 6, 8,10 or 12 rounds depending on club and fight/level. They are not allowed to bite off ears or disembowel each other! What would be the fun in that? Both of you should back off the personal animosity, return to your corners… wait for the bell! GK

  194. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    davidmhoffer & Dave Springer
    Stop squabbling already!
    I always enjoy and value comments from both of you! Let’s get back on-topic.

    REPLY: I agree, I’m about to put you two guys into the troll bin. Chill – Anthony

  195. Rational Debate says:

    re post by: Gail Combs says: November 27, 2011 at 8:02 am

    One of the crucial assumptions seems to be that CO2 is “uniform” through out the atmosphere. As a chemist who dealt with real world mixing problems in industry, I have a major problem with that assumption. Can you shed any light on that point???

    Apologies if this has already been addressed, but I just read down to this comment, and the incomplete mixing issue had occurred to me earlier as well. Primarily in terms of wondering how much it might affect the sort of study suggested by Dennis Ray Wingo – but then I figured, when the work was initially done there would also have been similar mixing issues, so perhaps not all that much? Unless, of course, somehow the mixing dynamics is noticeably changed between 300 ppm & 380 ppm, which is where some actual scientific research would come in handy {VBG}.

    Anyhow, the information I’d wanted to share is that I’m certain there have been one or more published studies showing that CO2 is generally not at all well mixed in the atmosphere. I’m sorry I don’t have link(s) handy, but they’d be either on a different computer or different FF user profile (I’ve had some recent stubborn computer problems). I’m pretty certain one referred to CO2 being ‘clumped’ in the atmosphere rather than uniformly mixed as is generally assumed.

    So if no one has had some handy links for you, you might be able to find the papers fairly easily using google scholar – or even searching here at WUWT since there’s a very good chance that such studies wound up with posted articles (tho I have to note, I seem to have much better luck using google w/ “site:wattsupwiththat.com xyz” than just using the WUWT site search for “xyz”).

  196. Rational Debate says:

    re post by: JPeden says: November 27, 2011 at 8:30 am

    ….which should also be banished! Along with coffee.

    Coffee? Banished?!!??!!!

    OFF WITH YOUR HEAD!!!

    Good lord man, don’t you know any basic nutrition? Coffee is one of the 4 major food groups, along with Chocolate, Fat, and a really good Cheesecake.

  197. Rational Debate says:

    re post by: kim2ooo says: November 27, 2011 at 9:00 am

    David L says: November 27, 2011 at 3:07 am

    By the way, Mr. Mann started out Yale grad. school in Theoretical Nuclear Physics prior to switching over to geophysics dept. ” ]

    Thank goodness he quit…can you imagine him putting a reactor in upside down? [ Contaminated Tiljander sediments upside down. Mann et al 2008 ].

    Ok, ok, we can ban coffee from within spew range of computer keyboards, I’ll grant Jpeden that much. (re post November 28, 2011 at 9:02 pm, wherein I threatened decapitation for the crime of suggesting that coffee be banned {VBG} )

  198. Rational Debate says:

    @ Crosspatch
    @ Jean Parisot
    @ Gail Combs

    How much funding for AGW is the USAF actually involved in, especially whichever branch your grant application went to? In other words, I suspect/wonder if a denial on the part of the USAF might not be far more based on “doesn’t meet our current needs” than any concern over upsetting the AGW applecart/pandora’s box.

    Try submitting to NASA instead. /half serious, half sarc, & totally disgusted with current state of NASA.

  199. Rational Debate says:

    re post by: J Martin says: November 27, 2011 at 9:34 am

    Don’t be too hard on your police – but on your lawmaker’s instead. Be especially hard on them if they haven’t rectified this problem by now. Apparently there were no FOI obstruction/evasion charges ONLY because the problem was brought to the attention of authorities long after the utterly ridiculously short FOI 6 month statute of limitations had expired. They would have had to discover the crime within 6 months of it being actually committed in order to prosecute!!

  200. Werner Brozek says:

    “Dave Springer says:
    November 27, 2011 at 10:54 pm
    I’m not sure how you’re getting an 8% increase. 1.00 is a 1.04 is a 4% increase.”

    The other 4% was from the added mass of water vapor. (Actually it would only be 4.00 x 18/29 = 2.5% more so I should have been more precise here.) In my example, the water vapor never changed phases, but stayed as water vapor, just a bit warmer water vapor after heat was applied. I am well aware of the latent heat of water vapor. I used to teach that stuff before I retired.

  201. Werner Brozek says:

    As for the mixing of CO2, there are only minor variations in the CO2 concentration throughout the atmosphere.

    It is a common misconception that buoyancy applies to gases as it does to liquids, however that is not the case. If we take a helium filled balloon in a room, it would rise to the top, however a CO2 filled balloon would go to the bottom. However if we poke a hole in each balloon, the individual molecules spread out very evenly. And in the atmosphere outside, the distribution of all gas molecules with the exception of water vapor, is very consistent. If all heavier molecules would sink to the bottom, then we would never have very heavy chlorofluorocarbons in the stratosphere. Helium atoms do escape from our atmosphere. However it is not due to buoyancy. You could have a CO2 molecule and a helium atom in the same place high in the atmosphere at the same temperature. Being the same temperature means the translational kinetic energy is the same. Kinetic energy is calculated by the formula E = 1/2mv2. Since the helium atom is much lighter than the CO2 molecule, its velocity at the same temperature is much higher so it can reach escape velocity and thereby leave Earth. By contrast, Jupiter has a larger gravitational field and a lower temperature than Earth, so it can hold on to its hydrogen and helium.

  202. So if no one has had some handy links for you, you might be able to find the papers fairly easily using google scholar – or even searching here at WUWT since there’s a very good chance that such studies wound up with posted articles (tho I have to note, I seem to have much better luck using google w/ “site:wattsupwiththat.com xyz” than just using the WUWT site search for “xyz”).

    The problem with this approach is that there is a huge amount of research and papers from the 1940’s through 1970’s that do not exist on the Internet. I can tell you that I have not been able to find a single reference to some of the books on IR radiation that sit on my desk due to my inordinate fondness for old science books and journals and my purchase of the Morton Thiokol technical library about 15 years ago.

    I can tell you from the circa 1964 DARPA book that I found in a used book store that they emphatically state that CO2 concentrations vary widely at altitudes less than 100 meters and that this observation was based upon a lot of experimental data gathering in the 1950’s. What many people who are younger than 50-60 don’t understand is that the 1940’s to 1960’s was the heyday of the experimental physicist. Today most universities discourage even the awarding of an engineering physics degree. My undergrad in engineering physics had almost as many hours as a masters degree and still the physics and engineering schools argued over the title of my degree!

    We are far too reliant today on computer models and computer modeling and we need to bring experimentation back into this process and into climate change studies.

    The experiments that I have discussed here are 100% doable today, hell we did them 60 years ago! The USAF may not want to release some of this data due to national security (if you have to ask, you don’t need to know), but it is there and some of the computer models are based upon downstream versions of this data.

  203. Rational Debate says:

    @ Robert Brown

    I almost hate to post this considering the time and effort and excellent information in your posts…. but it seems to me that there is another, far simpler and more likely scenario than the two you posted about.

    At least for the initial ClimateGate release, after having read thru quite a few threads, it sure appeared to me that the file(s) had almost certainly been compiled from systematic keyword searches in order to prepare possible response to FOI requests. There can be huge sets of keywords that wind up included in the records search. In other words, by the IT personnel with help as needed from lawyers and those who would know what keywords to use to search all possibly relevant servers and records for emails or files that might be applicable to the FOI. We all know that those FOI requests were stonewalled, and the information not released, but that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t compiled as chronological entries of all the emails that could possibly have been applicable. I’ve seen this sort of thing done in a quite large corporate/government environment before. It explains the patchy chronology (e.g., emails that didn’t have any of the keywords never make it into the almost automatically compiled files).

    Then the leaker/hacker only has to know about, or manage to find, the large resulting file(s). Anyone involved in the process on the IT or ‘helping IT’ side would both know about them, and probably where/which server they wound up being stored on. Copy those off, and presto, they were good to go. This obviates any need to search many different locations, or to have to copy off massive amounts of emails and winnow it down to relevant ones only, and so on. It also means that they wouldn’t have had to know that much about the science involved to be able to winnow wheat from the chaff – that was already done in the process of preparing/evaluating the emails for the FOI.

    I also have to comment about the suggestion of taking polygraphs of staff members or anyone possible leakers – I don’t believe there is any way police could force anyone to take a polygraph. At least not in the USA. They can ask if someone is willing, but no way they can compel it, and the results aren’t admissible in court anyhow. Polygraphs are notoriously inaccurate with, IIRC, estimates of accuracy when using well trained and experienced evaluators is anywhere between 50% to 80% accuracy. Those with less experience or who just aren’t very good at it can have even lower accuracy rates. The test providers have also been found to be quite subject to confirmation bias if anyone plants the idea in their minds that a certain person or persons are the likely culprit (of whatever is being looked for). The difficulty of course is that if you are asked to take one, and back out because you don’t trust the accuracy, some people may take that as a sign of guilt even when that’s totally incorrect and you are just knowledgeable and leery of the pitfalls and unreliability of polygraphs in general.

    Anyhow, I fully admit that I may be wrong about the files being directly prepared for possible FOI response – but that would be my bet and it seems to fit what is known and make far more sense than other options. I’d also think that the emails were leaked rather than hacked – even if I’m correct about how the data was compiled – it just seems more likely for an internal leak to have occurred than for someone to manage to hack in and find a few already complied chronological sets put together for possible FOI responses…

  204. Rational Debate says:

    I have no problem with the concept that nobel gases likely wind up being well mixed, but a more difficult time believing that to be true with other gases. Particularly when it’s one that has an active dynamic interaction with both plants, animals, and bodies of water…

    A few articles on uneven atmospheric CO2 concentrations or mixing:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/02/global-warming-potentials/ (with graphic of global variation in concentrations)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/16/nasa-says-airs-satellite-data-shows-positive-water-vapor-feedback/ Chahine said previous AIRS research data have led to some key findings about mid-tropospheric carbon dioxide. For example, the data have shown that, contrary to prior assumptions, carbon dioxide is not well mixed in the troposphere, but is rather “lumpy.” Until now, models of carbon dioxide transport have assumed its distribution was uniform

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/29/co2-well-mixed-or-mixed-signals/ with graphic of global variation in concentrations)

  205. Rational Debate says:

    re post: Dennis Ray Wingo says: November 29, 2011 at 12:43 am

    I couldn’t agree with you more. While I’m a bit young to have personally experienced the physics heyday you refer to, I know that there are reams of excellent research that aren’t available or referenced on the net, unfortunately. I also have a very high regard for much of the experimental research conducted during those decades – much of it was quite well thought out, rigorous, meticulous, solidly documented, and thus resulted in meaningful data and conclusions. In other words, what science is actually supposed to be! I and am becoming more and more disillusioned and disgusted with what seems to pass for experiments and research here recently – especially with the degree to which results and conclusions seem to go far beyond what the data supports.

    Dennis (or do you prefer Dennis Ray?), I wonder if something couldn’t be made of Gail Combs idea of approaching non-governmental sources for funding to conduct some of the types of experiments you are referring to? The funding wouldn’t even have to come from a single source… but I confess I have no clue how one would go about appropriately contacting parties such as the Koch brothers about possible research.

    But I’d sure like to see it happen, particularly if comparison to solid data from the past as you refer to could likely settle the AGW issue. I’m sure many others here would also love to see this happen!!!

  206. Myrrh says:

    Dennis Ray Wingo says:
    November 29, 2011 at 12:43 am
    So if no one has had some handy links for you, you might be able to find the papers fairly easily using google scholar – or even searching here at WUWT since there’s a very good chance that such studies wound up with posted articles (tho I have to note, I seem to have much better luck using google w/ “site:wattsupwiththat.com xyz” than just using the WUWT site search for “xyz”).

    The problem with this approach is that there is a huge amount of research and papers from the 1940′s through 1970′s that do not exist on the Internet. I can tell you that I have not been able to find a single reference to some of the books on IR radiation that sit on my desk due to my inordinate fondness for old science books and journals and my purchase of the Morton Thiokol technical library about 15 years ago.

    I can tell you from the circa 1964 DARPA book that I found in a used book store that they emphatically state that CO2 concentrations vary widely at altitudes less than 100 meters and that this observation was based upon a lot of experimental data gathering in the 1950′s. What many people who are younger than 50-60 don’t understand is that the 1940′s to 1960′s was the heyday of the experimental physicist. Today most universities discourage even the awarding of an engineering physics degree. My undergrad in engineering physics had almost as many hours as a masters degree and still the physics and engineering schools argued over the title of my degree!

    We are far too reliant today on computer models and computer modeling and we need to bring experimentation back into this process and into climate change studies.

    The experiments that I have discussed here are 100% doable today, hell we did them 60 years ago! The USAF may not want to release some of this data due to national security (if you have to ask, you don’t need to know), but it is there and some of the computer models are based upon downstream versions of this data.

    ===================

    The arguments about this are encapsulated in AGWScienceFiction v Beck. AGWSF denies Beck is relevant because they abide by the claim that ‘CO2 is well-mixed’, which as I’ve tried to explain is promoted by corrupt basics and, by claiming that the ‘background’ measurements of CO2 from Mauna Loa show parity with measurements from other stations.

    Firstly, they don’t understand Beck because they don’t understand that CO2 being heavier than air will not readily rise into the atmosphere, so CO2 production and levels are naturally local, not this mythical ‘well-mixed background’. CO2 also readily combines with water to form carbonic acid, all pure rain is carbonic acid. Again, even if it’s windy and CO2 is on the move from the area it was produced in, all rain brings it back down to Earth, it still won’t travel far from its source as water vapour rises and condenses out into rain, or it’s captured in fog, dew, general humidity (cold doesn’t mean the atmosphere isn’t humid). Stuff rusts because of this carbonic acid, reminds me I have to paint the garden furniture..

    Secondly, the Mauna Loa data is simply not reasonable. It was begun by Keeling who claimed after less than two years of data gathering, that he had found this mythical background was rising from human imput. He began with an agenda and his son ran the other stations which now so readily agree with Mauna Loa, then taken over by big government when the AGW bandwagon was rolling.

    Mauna Loa is described in the spiels about this as a “pristine” site for measuring this unproven ‘background’, that is, uncontaminated by local production of CO2. Mauna Loa is the world’s biggest active volcano, it sits surrounded by active volcanoes in an area of extreme hot spot activity building islands, thousands of earthquakes above ground and under water every year, the seas are warm.., etc. It is shear nonsense to claim that it is possible to separate out this mythical ‘background’ from the immense production of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere around the station.

    They don’t try. What they do, you can find descriptions of their methods, is choose a cut off point above which they say is ‘volcanic’ and below which they say is ‘background’. The Keeling curve goes ever upwards regardless of the global temperature changes and regardless of CO2 levels – which have continued to rise as global temps have continued to fall in the last couple of decades, and so on. Keeling cherry picked his starting point by ignoring all the previous work which shows great variation and local. And this goes way back into the century before last. He had never proved that there was such a thing as ‘background’.

    By it’s nature Carbon Dioxide is going to be a home-body. This is what the AIRS concluded, that it was local and lumpy and they would have to look at wind systems a bit more..

    I don’t know how we can get the missing AIRS data.

  207. Mauna Loa is described in the spiels about this as a “pristine” site for measuring this unproven ‘background’,

    I really don’t know about the quality of the Mauna Loa data and to come to a definitive answer would require spending quite a lot of time understanding the exact experimental set up. I do know, having just been on the big island a couple of weeks ago that there is frequently a volcanic fog or “vog” that occasionally kills entire crops and animals. However, if it is CO2 and it is heavier than air, then in large concentrations it will pool in low spots.

    This has happened in Africa where it killed a lot of people in the 1990’s and it is periodically happening at Mammoth Mountain in California (http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs172-96/). CO2 molecules are heavier than air and it defies reason that there would not be local elevated concentrations of the gas as the wet chemists experiments from as far back as the 1840’s have shown. I think that this is part of the reason that the chemists have been dismissed by the climatologists because the experimental results have tended to vary quite a bit. The DARPA book was done by experimentalist long before the AGW controversy and so would tend to put things in their proper context.

    As far as obtaining funding for something like an experimental campaign……

    It is possible but frankly at the end of the day it would take a lot of full time effort to do so. I have done my volunteer gig several times but would be willing to advise someone who is a good experimentalist or a funding person should they want to fund it.

    At the end of the day FOIA, (God bless his or her soul) has done every man, woman, and child on the Earth an enormous service by releasing these emails. At the end of the day, science has been compromised in the service of a political agenda, and FOIA has exposed this.

    I am not one who thinks that we should go forward with business as usual, but for different reasons. In the book I wrote on space development I did a historical study on energy. Before coal, the average lifespan of humans was 35 years. At the peak of the coal age in 1900 human lifespans increased to 48 years. Today at the peak of the oil age lifespans are about 80 years. We must go beyond oil if our 9 billion brothers and sisters are to live in a prosperous world. Nuclear fusion is the end state and our goal should be to make a megawatt of electrical power as cheap as a kilowatt is today. Energy is freedom and it should be our goal to make this happen. This is why I have little interest in the low road that the watermelons want us to trod. It is an intrinsic fact that all forms of alternative energy that are pushed by that crowd are low density energy poverty forms that cannot over the long term be sustained. This is where the real fight is an the untold story of the climategate emails is that the “team” are unwitting pawns in this much larger fight for our future.

  208. Werner Brozek says:

    “Rational Debate says:
    November 29, 2011 at 1:47 am

    I have no problem with the concept that noble gases likely wind up being well mixed, but a more difficult time believing that to be true with other gases. Particularly when it’s one that has an active dynamic interaction with both plants, animals, and bodies of water…

    A few articles on uneven atmospheric CO2 concentrations or mixing:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/02/global-warming-potentials/ (with graphic of global variation in concentrations)”

    I was aware of this graph when I wrote
    “Werner Brozek says:
    November 28, 2011 at 10:39 pm

    As for the mixing of CO2, there are only minor variations in the CO2 concentration throughout the atmosphere.”

    Note that the variation is between 376 and 386 on that picture so that is only a difference of 2.7%. Naturally, the CO2 would be higher for a few hours at the point where it is produced and lower where it is used up. However macroscopic systems tend to go towards an equilibrium in this regard. The question is just how long it takes to reach equilibrium and we cannot ignore the fact that true equilibrium is never reached in the atmosphere. On the other hand, how much difference would it make to global temperatures if the concentration were 376 instead of 386? In my opinion, the slight lumpiness of the CO2 concentration does not affect the overall debate.

  209. davidmhoffer says:

    Dennis Ray Wingo says:
    November 29, 2011 at 9:09 am
    Mauna Loa is described in the spiels about this as a “pristine” site for measuring this unproven ‘background’,
    I really don’t know about the quality of the Mauna Loa data>>>

    I looked into the issue a long time ago and came away pretty satisfied that their data is accurate. Willis Eschenbach did a very deep dive on the matter and came away with the same conclusion, as has Ferdinand Englebeen. If Willis and Ferdinand are OK with it, I’m OK with it.

    Beck and the pre Muana Loa data is more difficult to sort out. Beck showed for example that readings taken at night when there was no wind were much lower than readings taken on windy nights. On a windless night in the centre of a corn field, the level of CO2 would be effectively zero because the corn had sucked it all up. To get accurate readings, Beck worked out various technicques for sampling in areas where vegetation could not have a large effect, sufficient wind to ensure the local air was mixed by the turbulance and so on.

  210. Rational Debate says:

    @Werner Brozek

    Yes, and the 3rd link I provided shows a NASA AIRS globe, with the CO2 range from about 364/5 to 382. Each of this are only 2 dimensional representations – I would have to believe it quite likely that once atmospheric depth is considered, the range is probably often far larger. Perhaps even vastly larger if you are comparing, say, the CO2 levels above actively growing plant life such as perhaps a cornfield, on a sunny summer afternoon, versus in the middle of the night… or above a massive herd of millions of ruminants come together for migration, vs. CO2 levels above that large cornfield on the summer day, or even above barren desert sand dunes.

    How well and quickly do those variation disperse and mix into the atmosphere? I’m sure it depends on a huge number of different factors. As you note, however, it almost certainly can’t ever reach equilibrium, not considering the uneven dispersion of life and water on the planet, varied use of CO2 during night vs. day for all plant life, jet streams, varied vertical mixing rates, etc., etc.

    Of course, our typical discourse is rather vague and ambiguous – what is ‘well mixed’ to one may be ‘not mixed’ to another, unless we begin actually specifying numbers, and justifying why a particular value has meaning for a particular context. Scientifically, however, a range from 364-382 (or even 376-386), and some existing published research stating typical atmospheric CO2 having a “clumpy” or “lumpy” molecular distribution that is stated as being “not well mixed”… well, that simply doesn’t meet the definition of “well mixed” that I was taught in chemistry/biochemistry/physics/nuclear & radiological safety engineering etc. or that I have used in my career. And as an aside, you note that the smaller range is only 2.7% of the total value – but how meaningful is that when the starting value was about 280 ppm, not 0 – and what we are discussing is a trace gas that supposedly has vast ability to affect our climate based on relatively small changes?

    Is the difference, the range of CO2 atmospheric variance, significant enough to be meaningful in climatology? Personally, I don’t know – but I would have to suspect that since we’re talking about incident radiation and subsequent emissions, that it could very well.

    Regardless, it certainly seems to be yet another very basic issue intimately associated with AGW that isn’t at all well characterized and represented in models and many climatology papers. They seem to run on the apparently unfounded assumption of ‘well mixed.’ To me, that’s a serious flaw in application of the scientific method, and therefore calls into question everything that is based on it along with any papers that use conclusions from these. Again, would fixing it change conclusions? I don’t know – but you certainly don’t get to good scientifically based answers by using unfounded assumptions and incorrect representations – and you certainly don’t build solid scientific foundations to springboard future discoveries either.

    Sure, the research might be correct accidentally or in spite of the assumptions and inaccuracies, but then, that’s not really science, now is it?

  211. Rational Debate says:

    Dennis Ray Wingo says: November 27, 2011 at 2:35 pm

    The economics of nuclear power is its own torpedo. It’s just too expensive compared to coal and natural gas. France has the largest percentage of nuclear generated electricity in the world at almost 80%. The average price per kilowatt hour there is $0.19. The average price in the United States, which gets only 20% from nukes is $0.11.

    The nuclear power plants in the U.S. have an estimated cost per kilowatt hour across the fleet of $.0183 per kwh, cheaper than coal. The Palos Verde plant in Arizona has a cost per kw/hr at $.0123 per kw/h

    Look the numbers up.

    Dennis Ray Wingo and DavidMHoffer are absolutely correct on this one. Electrical production costs are typically the lowest or very close to it using nuclear power – and that includes fuel costs, storage of spent fuel, decommissioning, etc. For many many years France produced electricity cheaper than pretty much anywhere else in the EU nations because they use nuclear power (and perhaps still do, I just haven’t checked the data recently).

    In the USA, the biggest factors that increased the costs and delayed construction of nuclear power plants were related to regulatory issues and massive legal and physical interference by anti-nuclear activists. Utilities weren’t allowed to put planned nuclear plants into the rate base before and during construction as they were for other types of power plants, resulting in large up front capital financing costs that didn’t happen with other types of power plants. Licensing requirements were often revised multiple times during construction, requiring long delays and expensive retrofitting, often for little or no significant safety improvement. For that matter, while stringent regulations are necessary to ensure safety, in some aspects the regulatory burden is far out of proportion and beyond anything necessary, adding unnecessary expense.

    Activists not only physically impeded plant work, but also filed multiple frivolous lawsuits, which halted construction, and of course were also very expensive and time consuming. For example, claims were made of faulty welding on already buried components by people who could have zero way to know anything about the welds in question. These were often on components that were already under concrete and other structures, such that the utility would have to rip everything up, document sound welds, and then rebuild everything that had to be ripped up to get at the components. As a result, utilities began documenting each and every weld, such that they had proof if a lawsuit was filed or claim of this nature was made (plenty of added expense in these sorts of cya efforts).

    These sorts of things are what killed any continuing development of nuclear in the USA – the activist/legal forced delays and regulatory uncertainty, not costs of electricity produced by these plants, which is still extremely low/cheap.

  212. Werner Brozek says:

    “Rational Debate says:
    November 29, 2011 at 2:54 pm
    Is the difference, the range of CO2 atmospheric variance, significant enough to be meaningful in climatology?”

    A recent climate sensitivity estimate is 1.7 to 2.6 for a doubling of CO2. This may well be wrong, however let us assume for the moment that it is correct. That would be similar to knowing that the acceleration due to gravity at Earth’s surface is somewhere between 8 and 12. (At the equator, the g value is 9.78 and at the poles it is 9.83.) But if we did not know these values, but only knew it was between 8 and 12, then being concerned what happens at the poles versus equator is totally irrelevant. That is how I see the issue of the very slight lumpiness in CO2 concentrations. If the best guess is 1.7 to 2.6, then the lumpiness issue is also totally irrelevant at this stage.

  213. Rational Debate says:

    @ Werner Brozek

    Ok, now I’m thoroughly convinced that CO2 is anything but well mixed in our atmosphere. Watch the video at: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/16/the-life-and-times-of-carbon-dioxide/

    Or, ironic timing, see the Japanese graphs: http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/co2-emitted-by-the-poor-nations-and-absorbed-by-the-rich-oh-the-irony-and-this-truth-must-not-be-spoken/

  214. davidmhoffer says:

    Werner Brozek;
    A recent climate sensitivity estimate is 1.7 to 2.6 for a doubling of CO2. This may well be wrong, however let us assume for the moment that it is correct>>>

    Let’s assume that it is correct. Then let us also demonstrate that even if correct, it is an exagerration. I haven’t read that specific paper, but all the sensitivity estimates in IPCC AR3 and AR4 are calculated against the “effective black body temperature” of the earth, which is about -20 C. Given Stefan-Boltzman equation defines temperature for a given radiative balance as:

    P(w/m2) = 5.67*10^-8*T^4 with T in degrees K….

    And the average temperature of the earth at the SURFACE is about +15 C, the sensitivity estimate applied to the earth’s surface winds up being about 2/3 of of the sensitivity of the “effective black body temperature. That gives us (at earth surface) an estimate of from 1.13 degrees to 1.80 degrees.

    Applying that same formula to the tropics, the sensitivity is perhaps a quarter of that, or less. In the arctic regions, it may be double or triple. If the Antarctic goes from an average of -80 degrees to -70…I’m pretty certain that the total lack of life in the region will not change appreciably.

  215. Werner Brozek says:

    “Rational Debate says:
    November 29, 2011 at 7:47 pm”

    On the first graph, the variations were from 365 to 385 and on the other, there were very few spots under 365.

    Check out the Keeling curve at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve

    Note that it was about 1998 when the CO2 was 365 and what has happened temperature wise since then? Nothing, even though CO2 is about 390 now. Let us assume for a moment that these numbers represent uniform numbers. So if a change from 365 to 390 made no difference, why should a lumpiness between 365 and 390 make any difference? CO2 just does not seem to have much effect!

  216. Werner Brozek says:

    “davidmhoffer says:
    November 29, 2011 at 8:31 pm
    I haven’t read that specific paper”

    See
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/09/climate-sensitivity-lowering-the-ipcc-fat-tail/

    However I do not feel qualified to comment on what you have said.

  217. Rational Debate says:

    re post by: Werner Brozek says: November 29, 2011 at 11:16 pm

    …Note that it was about 1998 when the CO2 was 365 and what has happened temperature wise since then? Nothing, even though CO2 is about 390 now. Let us assume for a moment that these numbers represent uniform numbers. So if a change from 365 to 390 made no difference, why should a lumpiness between 365 and 390 make any difference? CO2 just does not seem to have much effect!

    Werner, I’m totally with you on your final conclusion. While I’ll debate various aspects and points, I’ve argued for some time now that “climate science” has never managed to get past the null hypothesis – there’s just nothing that appears to be unusual in terms of either the rate, magnitude, or length of warming since… well, pick your starting point for when mankind started contributing ‘significant’ amounts of CO2, say, 1950.

    The point I’m trying to make in this discussion, however, is that claims by ‘climate scientists’ of CO2 being “well mixed” and models using this assumption basically invalidate the science. Or what they’re claiming passes as science. Sorry for the tone here, I’m just beyond utterly disgusted with the behavior of the top ‘climate scientists’ as displayed in the climategate emails. Not to mention just the massive and egregious violations of the scientific method – such as ignoring the null hypothesis. Or the degree of uncertainty. Or – or any number of various aspects that we’ve all taken issue with over the last few years. I rather cherish science in general and what it has helped us accomplish and brought into our lives – and utterly hate seeing it mangled so, and the general public so grossly misled and misinformed, with the subsequent worldwide waste of resources and damage to so many people’s lives.

  218. Thomas L says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    November 27, 2011 at 2:46 pm

    The source of the material is obvious if you think about two factors: Timespan – more than 10 years. Contents – both 1.0 and 2.0 tightly focused on Climate, and including many embarrassing and possibly illegal admissions. Source started with email backup server, and culled for an FOIA request or requests that were not honored.

    Took both a medium level of technical expertise, and a knowledgeable editor to cull. When this wasn’t released, someone internal (IT expert, content editor or mystery person at UEA) was quite upset at the non-release, and determined that the information get out there. Either a copy of the material was made, or (my theory) the directory on which the FOIA info was stored was given internet sftp or rsync capability, possibly at the ‘guest’ level. Then the knowledge that the info was available was deliberately leaked. Alternatively, someone burned CDs or USB thumb drive copies of the material, or used a USB hard drive enclosure, etc. Many ways for the information to leave the premises, physically or electronically. Once a second copy of the FOIA existed, third or subsequent copies are easy, with no further audit trail.

    But it had to be someone who knew the FOIA culled information existed and where it was kept. Thus – inside job.

  219. Thomas L says:

    The physics points to a lukewarm sensitivity, with a hard cap at 4K, but a likely range of 0K to 0.5K per CO2 doubling. I’d have to take a close look at gray body radiation, CO2 and H2O absorption vs. transparent bandwidths/frequencies, and evaporation rates and convection work done, all accurate within 2%. My WAG (wild guess) back-of-the-envelope estimate is 20% of 1.2K, or 0.24K per CO2 doubling, with the caveat that this is likely to be CO2/H2O ratio sensitive as well as temperature sensitive (slightly less than 0.24K at higher temperatures).

    Primary difference is visible light absorption in the ocean, which should have lags of around 2-3 years and 850-1100 years, vs. IR absorption in the ocean, with a lag of < seconds for SST at the micron depth, and a lag of roughly 0-14 days in the atmosphere. These must be given separate partial differentials, and both sets of equations are hairy. Most of this involves both work and temperature.

Comments are closed.