“Tim, Chris, I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020”
Question: If warming really threatens to destroy human civilization, why was Jones hoping for warming?
And if the world was still warming in 2009, why did Jones refer to “lack of warming”?
Tim, Chris, I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020.
…
I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.
Maybe he needs a backup plan:
MacCracken suggests that Phil Jones start working on a “backup” in case Jones’ prediction of warming is wrong
In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.
We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared.
Best, Mike MacCracken [Note that Obama’s chief science advisor, John Holdren, is copied on this email]
Thanks to Tom Nelson for spotting these
Gotcha
All I can say is wow – that is a good one.
It must be all the cracks in his AGW theory that’s letting all the heat escape!
Clearly Phil Jones was doing politics, not science.
Jones
Must be feeling the heat now?
Why is Phil Jones “hoping” that he is wrong the lack of warming?? Why would an impartial “scientist” be hoping one way or another?
He is a liar. He is not a man dedicated to science. He is a weasel dedicated to politics and abusing science in the process.
OH NOOOOOO!!!! The “problem” seems to be taking care of itself!!!! We have to act fast before the “problem” goes away. Quick, recraft the message and limit SO2 emissions to keep the planet cookin’…..we need to keep the grant money flowing or else we’ll have to get real jobs.
Wow. Phil, let me be the first to say: the models are no good. Managed to rustle up a ‘quantified explanation’ yet?
What’s the sulfate hypothesis?
We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared.
Best, Mike MacCracken [Note that Obama’s chief science advisor, John Holdren, is copied on this email]
Interesting last line. So why does a courtier — sorry Czar of the US President need to know how the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit is going to explain that the world isn’t warming?
He really needs to Phil in the blanks in his AGW theory as there currently seems to be nothing left but blanks.
This spaghetti logic implies that if the sulfate hypothesis is wrong then his prediction of warming is then correct. Who deemed these to be mutually exclusive in the first place, Nancy?
No! The NH warming WRT the SH suggests that sulfate hypothesis is wrong and …. so was the global warming prediction.
Well, at least he can find solace in getting the “Skeptics will be all over us” part correct.
The message, not the science is what these craven manipulators defend, and that defense is mounted because the message is well funded. There exists no such funding for a contrary message, but if it did I have no doubt these same craven manipulators would, “for the sake of balance”, crush the opposition to grab those funds as well.
As a consumer of the results of the investigations of these craven manipulators we have some skin in the game. We are also the funders, you see. Using the same flash mob tactics of the craven manipulators and with the energy of crowd sourcing coordinated so successfully by Anthony with his weather station siting project, we can own the process again, and see that funds for climate research go to reputable institutions.
Mr. Watts – how can we help?
What I see is proof positive that whatever the climate is doing, they are sticking to their guns. Truth be damned. Science be damned.
Science, schmience. Political advocacy is the name of the game here. All funded on the taxpayer dime.
Welcome to the post-normal world.
The warmists’ big problem is the lack of a major volcano in the last decade or so. As a result they have no excuse for lack of warming.
When they make predictions, they probably assumed that a volcano (which normally occurs every few years) would give them enough wriggle room if the predictions were wrong.
Back in the good old days we’d be heating up the tar, plucking the feathers, and finding an empty boxcar to shove these morons into.
Instead we keep sending them millions of our hard earned dollars and euros.
“Question: If warming really threatens to destroy human civilization, why was Jones hoping for warming?”
Indeed. This is an extremely inconvenient question, to put it mildly. So while Jones hopes for his imaginary doomsday, I hope that this revealing quote becomes a main headline of this whole story.
He hopes for his imagined doomsday just to prove him right? Egomaniac. Zealot.
Or he knows that his doomsday is BS but still wants some warming to prove he is right? Lying egomaniacal zealot.
Or, like the Greenies in general, he hopes for some sign of their imagined doomsday to keep driving their real agenda? Lying egomaniacal zealous useful idiot.
The ‘anti-human’ mentality of the Greenies is sick. It probably reflects how much they subconsciously hate themselves.
In the meantime, how soon until we hear the sob stories about poor Phil having a mental breakdown or playing some other victim card?
So switching to low sulfur coal in our power plants was actually a bad thing? Now to put the sulfur back into the gasoline and the “problem” is solved!!!!
One questoin: what’s the stoichiometric ratio of SO2 to CO2 to obtain no temperature effect?
The damned skeptics….. if they found out that I want and pray for global warming……hopefully not before I cash in my pension entitlements….
This all sounds like the return of lysenkoism where a corrupt and fawning scientist did anything the ruthless dictator wanted for his personal gain and power. Now, AGW “scientists” will do anything to influence the policies of nations and the UN for their personal monetary gain and power over billions of the world’s poor and suffering. What a nasty blow to the health and welfare of billions these corrupt and conspiring people have brought. To continue the Soviet analogy, the AGW lysenkoists have duped and misled millions of useful idiots. What a blow to all science.
Cause in the Community.
.
.
.
[It’s a Brit ref – Margaret Thatcher removed funding and mentally disabled people became dependant on their relatives and charity rather than the health service and institutions. It was dubbed “Care in the Community” with claims that it was “better” and cheaper]
Palm => Face.
He wants to wear my smug grin away does he ?
I’m vexed. I havn’t been this vexed in a long time
The goal is reducing human impact on the air, regardless of whether people were suffering due to the anthropogenic changes. They are being driven by concerns that the push for the U.S. govt to “get serious” might be derailed.
Global warming was a convenient excuse to convince people to do something that Jones, Mann et al want them to do for other, personal reasons. It might be the pleasure of a pristine, natural atmosphere, it might be to get back at the kid who made fun of them at school, it might be because they are emotionally scared that the Earth will end up like Venus etc. The alarmism is a rationalization, a crutch to justify the efforts to others and possibly even to themselves in many cases..
Hey Phil, really sucks when real world data does not meet your theory doesn’t it? It’s called being a real scientist – you know, data, theory, test and prove or disprove theory.
AGW became a religion long ago; it’s not science.
My smug grin has just widened. Bwhahahaha.
It must be that they’re picturing all that missing heat building up somewhere,
(if only they could find it)
and all they want is that it gets out of its cage sooner,
else it will build up so intensely as eventually to broil us overnight.
Every Doom-sayer instinctively knows that Doomsday delayed
is Doomsday intensified.
We have to atone for our carbon sins sooner or later.
“the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.”
Well that is telling…
No concern there for the world’s second biggest and fastest growing emitter of CO2 at that time, China? Now the world’s biggest.
Phil Jones is about as ignorant a person as anyone in his position can be. He truly doesn’t understand. That’s why he blames everything but the real cause on ‘climate change’. Let’s let an educated adult explain it to him:
Jones and his mendacious clique are pushing the CO2 narrative for money and fame. They have no scientific evidence – none – showing that CO2 is causing climate change. They are simply lying for money and self-aggrandizement, and their scientific misconduct amounts to defrauding the public that pays for their nonsense.
“Question: If warming really threatens to destroy human civilization, why was Jones hoping for warming?”
It is either due to money and reputation – or he doesn’t believe it is actually a threat.
Perhaps a bit of both.
“We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared”
It’s sort of like watching a man repeatedly hitting the nose-cap of a large bomb with a lump hammer. You know its going to end in tears, but just not when.
Maurizio Morabito (omnologos) says:
November 30, 2011 at 9:50 am
What’s the sulfate hypothesis?
You can get more information by searching on “global dimming”, but the short version is that very fine grained sulfates are thought to serve to nucleate very small ice crystal at high altitudes. Because of their small size they are thought to have a comparatively lengthy residency in the atmosphere. The ice crystals increase the earth’s albedo. Known SO3 sources include coal-burning power plants, jet planes at high altitudes and volcanic eruptions, which can all increase atmospheric SO3, reducing direct surface irradiance, thus reducing the number poor infrared photons lost, trapped in the atmosphere and unable to find their way back to space. Since the volcanic arena has been remarkably active this year, you can expect another cool season or two.
Re: David Ball’s comment, “What I see is proof positive that whatever the climate is doing, they are sticking to their guns. Truth be damned. Science be damned.”
I don’t believe this is a fair interpretation. The discussion makes it clear that the participants are aware of their own fallibility, as in, “I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability.”
No attempt here to fake or fudge data, rather an explicit acknowledgment that to treat anthropogenic carbon emissions and natural climate variability as the only factors affecting global mean temperature is incorrect.
The reference to the “sulfate issue” is eminently sensible, since anthropogenic sulfur emissions, which have a cooling effect, have likely been increasing due to increases in Chinese coal-fired power generation, increased marine traffic, etc.
There is much else in the released emails to show that, for the most part, climate scientists are thinking with proper scientific open-mindedness, unlike their more extreme political partisans.
Clearly, the desire is expressed in the emails to come out of the argument about climate change on the winning side. But scientists are not lobotomized thinking machines. They are self-serving humans like the rest of us. If you doubt it, consider the dispute over the infinitesimal calculus between Newton and Leibniz, in which the chief protagonists or their partisans resorted to the most violent abuse including the use of the terms “thief,” “toady,” and “ape.” In comparison, the debate between Mike Mann and Steve McIntyre over the hockey stick graph has been conducted with collegial restraint.
What Climategate shows, as I have discussed here, is how scientists actually think. It also shows how the integrity of the scientific process can be jeopardized by outside political and financial influence. On balance, I would say that Climategate makes the climate science community look better on the inside than it does in public, where members tend to parrot the party line — perceived as a requirement of project funding in an Al-Gore-twisted world, and to maintain their public standing as people doing vitally important work.
Wow, At what point will the authorities be called into investigate and prosecute these scoundrels? If nothing else there is clear evidence against them in conspiring to commit fraud.
“I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong.”
In hindsight this makes a complete tool of Richard Black from the BBC, his article on the lack of warming sounds exactly like the “back up plan” as set out and mentioned above, he was (if I remember correctly) blaming china’s coal power stations for producing sulfates that caused the decade long “lack of global warming”, I think prof. J. Curry too had a disagreement with Blacks lame excuse (“back up plan”) for the lack of Global warming.
The game is up!! The Scam is over, they know it and we know it. (I’m actually swearing big-time here, I’m so damn angry).
MacCracken has an interesting outlook on sulphates vs ocean acidification:
“Sure, a bit more acid deposition, but it is not harmful over the ocean (so we only/mainly emit for trajectories heading out over the ocean) and the impacts of deposition may well be less that for global warming (will be a tough comparison, but likely worth looking at). “
Maurizio Morabito (omnologos) says:
November 30, 2011 at 9:50 am
What’s the sulfate hypothesis?
The sulphate theory says the recent cooling is due to too much coal being burnt in China and India which reflects the heat outwards and negates the warming of the extra CO2. When these sulpahtes go away with a clean up then CO2 warming will recommence.
2 problems, the cooling started before Chinas dash to burn coal and the cooling does not showup in the same areas as the increase in sulphates.
Its a back of fag packet theory dreamt up to keep the faithful happy.
” John Holdren, is copied on this email”
That’s absolutely outrageous!!!!
“Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.”
For what ever reason, sulphates, solar activity, natural variation,etc, the point is if the world is really cooling then they and their hypothosis is wrong, along with their models! Thats the whole point surely.
Gavin over at Real Climate sums up the situation well, the only problem is that he has incorrectly identified the writers of ‘crap’ papers, he obviously meant Jones, Mann and the rest of the Team.
“In most fields you would be correct. But in climate science and a few other highly politicized fields, “crap” papers are forever being plucked out of obscurity and thrust into the public domain with highly misleading press campaigns, often with the support of the authors. When that happens, scientists who write “non-crap” papers are assailed left, right and center (though mostly right) with demands to respond to the “crap” results. It is unfortunately unavoidable – it comes in congressional hearings, radio talk shows, journalists, members of the public, concerned colleagues etc. Every time this happens, someone usually has to go to the trouble of outlining in excruciating detail when such a high-profile media-backed politically-connected piece of “crap”, is indeed a piece of “crap”. This takes time and effort that would be far more productively spent on doing “non-crap” research. It is frequently personally distressing, because the person or persons who take this on, then become targets of said campaigners. Singer, Lindzen, Spencer, Miskolczi, Soon and Balinuas etc. have all produced “crap” to order with exactly this intention, and effect. Ignoring it is generally untenable. – gavin]”
Maurizio – the sulphate hypothesis argues that increasing sulphate emissions from for example China and India have countered the warming from increased carbon dioxide – the sulphur reflects sunlight and hence has a cooling effect….HOWEVER, the evidence does not support the hypothesis which is generated from an ignorance of sulphate dynamics on the part of modellers – who similarly attributed the lack of warming from 1950-1980 on the post-war sulphur releases. This was proven incorrect by 2005 with several papers showing the previous cooling was present in unpolluted regions and finally in 2007 by the IPCC admitting the sulphur effect was localised and not capable of global impact. They should have know this from simple aerodynamics – it takes a very big volcanic eruption of sulphates to cool the globe – big enough to get the sulphur high enough – industrial emissions do not get that height. So – it is hand waving aimed at environment correspondents too lazy to check the science.
Incidently, all the current climate models were supposedly validated by replicating the 1950-1980 dip in warming using models of sulphate aerosol – and not one has owned up to the error. maybe they quietly redid the parameters hoping no one would spill the beans. I give chapter and verse of this in my book ‘Chill: a reassessment of global warming theory’.
And more incidently, I would normally be able to communicate with the left-liberal-green organisations and newspapers, being of that political persuasion myself – but they won’t even enter a discourse, publish letters in newspapers, or articles, or even meet up for a discussion – and that leaves me wondering whether they are the same green philosophers I knew in the early days of the environmental movement – I think not – we are encountering a new political phenomenon – visible the other day when Michael MacCarthy – the Independent’s environment correspondent invoked Margaret Thatcher and her understanding of science in support of the new green agenda!
@Al Gored
‘In the meantime, how soon until we hear the sob stories about poor Phil having a mental breakdown or playing some other victim card?’
I couldn’t help thinking the same thing. I wonder what the odds are at the TAB that Phil Jones will be crying into his weeties within the next fortnight.
Beesaman says:
November 30, 2011 at 9:35 am
It must be all the cracks in his AGW theory that’s letting all the heat escape!
It’s not just the heat escaping, but as in the words of my favorite Old Philosopher Leonard Cohen
“There is a crack, a crack in everything That’s how the light gets in”
The birds they sang at the break of day
“Start again”, I heard them say
Don’t dwell on what has passed away
Or what is yet to be
Ah, the wars they will be fought again
The holy dove, she will be caught again
Bought and sold and bought again
The dove is never free
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That’s how the light gets in
We asked for signs, the signs were sent
The birth betrayed, the marriage spent
Yeah, the widowhood of every government
Signs for all to see
I can’t run no more with that lawless crowd
While the killers in high places say their prayers out loud
But they’ve summoned, they’ve summoned up a thundercloud
And they’re going to hear from me
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That’s how the light gets in
You can add up the parts, you won’t have the sum
You can strike up the march, there is no drum
Every heart, every heart to love will come
But like a refugee
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That’s how the light gets in
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That’s how the light gets in
That’s how the light gets in
That’s how the light gets in
“In any case, of … your prediction of warming might end up being wrong …
I would … suggest, … that you also do some checking …, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong.” (Mike MacCracken to Phil Jones)
Means in plain language: “Our AGW hypothesis may prove dead wrong, but instead of giving it up we need some sort of explanations to keep our influence and the big bucks going anyway.”
Can it be said any clearer?
John Holdren was copied. Didn’t he stop this game then?
MacCracken, Director of Climate Institute “The Climate Institute has been in a unique position to inform key decision-makers.”
Doesn’t his advise more sound like “intentionally misinforming key decision makers” ?
Should be a wake-up call for those guys. Being this level, you don’t want to be fooled, right?
Except you’re part of the game.
“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
D Eisenhower. Jan 1961
Smart man that President Eisenhower.
CanSpeccy says that these charlatans are “doing vitally important work.”
Nonsense. Everything they’re doing is self-serving, from grant trolling, to constant free jaunts to places like Bali, Hawaii and other holiday venues, to their outrageous and hypocritical carbon footprints. And the ‘collegial restraint’ has been entirely on the side of skeptics like Steve McIntyre. Junior despots like Michael Mann and Phil Jones squirm around, doing everything possible to avoid cooperating. They provide no transparency, which is essential to the scientific method. The only time they answer questions is in well scripted, friendly venues – and that includes the so-called “investigations,” which were no more than whitewashed coverups intended to quickly put the problem behind them. Mann even took part in strategy sessions where the questions were formulated! And saying that this sort of thing has happened before is no excuse. The public is being defrauded by the official demonization of “carbon”. This isn’t an argument between scientists with egos. This is conspiring to take money from already hard-bitten taxpayers, and these connivers will say or do anything to keep their gravy train from being derailed.
CanSpeccy doesn’t seem to understand that there is no scientific evidence that CO2 causes climate change, despite decades of searching for any such evidence. The evidence just doesn’t exist. But the money – our tax money – is wasted in the $billions every year on what has turned out to be a complete non-problem.
Anyone reading these astonishing emails sees a small group of thoroughly dishonest scientists conniving to game the system for their own benefit. The climate peer review system has been totally corrupted; is there any doubt? Any doubt at all? Being an apologist for these reprobates is unacceptable. What they are doing is wrong, and exasperating. They need to be called on the carpet, not excused.
TheGoodLocust says:
November 30, 2011 at 10:44 am
“Question: If warming really threatens to destroy human civilization, why was Jones hoping for warming?”
It is either due to money and reputation – or he doesn’t believe it is actually a threat.
Perhaps a bit of both.
_____
Of course there is an alternative and equally plausible explanation. Jones really does believe that long term human induced warming is a serious issue that requires attention, and feared that any short-term “natural variability” that caused short-term cooling, no matter the cause (sulfates, quiet sun, PDO, etc) might mask the long-term warming and forestall the global action required to slow the build-up of greenhouse gases. This alternative explanation will of course upset skeptics who’d rather paint Dr. Jones as a money-grubbing tool of the political power elite, rather than a truly concerned scientist. The explanation you choose to accept for the motivations behind his comments, will, like most things in life, depend on what you want to see.
Gates, if you actually believe what you wrote about Jones, then you either haven’t read his emails where he schemes and connives to destroy the careers of honest scientific skeptics who have done nothing more than to express a different point of view, or your reading comprehension is zilch. Jones is an unethical game player; Michael Mann’s corrupt UK equivalent.
Smokey says: “CanSpeccy says that these charlatans are “doing vitally important work.
Nonsense. Everything they’re doing is self-serving…”
Yes, well that actually it was a point I made that scientists are self-serving people just like Smokey.
As for:
“CanSpeccy doesn’t seem to understand that there is no scientific evidence that CO2 causes climate change…”
Well, in not understanding that I’m in the good company of people like Steve McIntyre and Lord Monckton of Brenchley who readily acknowledge that CO2 absorbs outgoing IR radiation and thus warms the atmosphere, although they say, by not much.
But Smokey seems to be a sort of Al Gore mirror image, so nothing satisfies her/him except except relentless vituperation directed against climate scientists.
Further to:
JohnH says:
November 30, 2011 at 11:12 am
///////////////////////////////////////
3rd problem: back in the 1970s and 80s when global warming first took flight, the West was burning a lot of coal and at and that time there was not the same sulphur restrictions which are in enforced today in the West, Thus if sulphate emissions will counterbalance the warming effect of CO2 then this should have occurred in the late 70s and 80s and there ought not to have been any significant global warming during that time.
The cAGW protagonists can’t have it both ways. If Sulphate emisions explain the lack of warming since 1998 the cAGW protagonists need to explain why it did not similarly stiffle the warming in the late 70s and 80s.
Smokey says:
November 30, 2011 at 12:13 pm
Gates, if you actually believe what you wrote about Jones, then you either haven’t read his emails where he schemes and connives to destroy the careers of honest scientific skeptics who have done nothing more than to express a different point of view, or your reading comprehension is zilch. Jones is an unethical game player; Michael Mann’s corrupt UK equivalent.
____
You are a perfect example of the truth in the last sentence of my previous post.
Over at RC I’ve heard Gavin and Eric play down the image of a “Team”. Does anyone know who coined the term “Team”?
I think this is one of the most damning e-mails of all. CanSpeccy would do well to read Richard Feynman’s ‘Cargo Cult Science’ if he thinks this is how science should be conducted. (I’m not disputing that many who pass themselves off as scientists might behave in this way, but they are deserving of our condemnation, not our praise). Feynman is correct is stating that when inconvenient results are found, real scientists publish them. Cargo cult scientists (or vodoo scientists in Park’s words) try to explain away inconvenient results by constructing rationalisations that try to account for the failure of their predictions. The sulphate hypothesis (for which we have no reliable data for the key period 1940-1980) is the fall-back fudge factor. Where did that warming go? Sulphate aerosols! Where has the warming gone over the past decade? Sulphate aerosols? Much more convenient than: we don’t know and our models are unreliable — but go ahead and commit to policies on the basis of them (and we’ll keep providing you with The Science to justify them).
The back up plan to the back up plan is to start attributing all “extreme weather” to CO2.
I just want Dr. Jones to explain to me how a COLDER atmosphere can radiate heat and warm the surface. It goes fundamentally against the laws of physics. In order for there to be surface heating caused by AGW, there must be atmospheric heating as the source of the re-radiated heat. The atmosphere is cold. Colder than it has been in a while. How does a colder atmosphere heat the surface? I would want him to explain that phenomenon first before he explains anything else.
Dr Jones…
[“I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.”]
.
There is so much in this one small sentence.
1. You ‘know’ the warming is on the decadal scale. This will be the ‘warming’ that you ‘know’ will happen due to anthropogenic emissions of CO2, right?
2. How come no-one (in the Team) spoke about ‘decadal scale warming’ when the MBH98 Hockey Stick graph was sold to Joe Public as ‘proof’ of cAGW?
3. (Just as an aside, when you climb up a hill, reach a plateau and then walk along the top for a while, you will be ‘higher’ than you were when you started the climb. Being ‘higher’ is not the same as ‘climbing’.)
4. I do not feel smug! I feel an entire suite of emotions including, but not exclusively, depression, resignation, intellectual fatigue, frustration, vexation and irritation at the way you so-called ‘scientists’ have repeatedly and deviously tried to peddle your unscientific dogma as some form of authoritarian ‘truth’. This has gone way past ‘smug’.
.
Do yourself a favour. Grow a set and admit that your precious radiative forcing theory has failed to be supported by observed data. Revisit the theory.
@R. Gates says:
November 30, 2011 at 12:05 pm
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Nice to see you back.
Your explanation is possible, and indeed, if it were not for all the other examples of advocacy/activism over science seen in the many other e-mails, in isolation, I could even accept your explanation as reasonable. However, there are now too many examples of Jones’ partiality and desire to promote ‘the cause’ to render your explanation not particularly plausible.
A scientist should always be more interested in the science than in anything else. The lack of warming should have excited the scientist in him and encouraged him to strive to find out what may be the cause of the lack of warming and what that may inform as to how the climate system works. In other words, he should have welcomed it.
CanSpeccy,
You have set up a strawman. I said there is no evidence that CO2 causes climate change. However, as I’ve said countless times here over the past several years, I think that 2xCO2 would probably result in a ≈1°C rise in temperature, ±0.5°C, based on radiative physics. But there is no evidence that CO2 causes “climate change” and “climate disruption” as the alarmist crowd has constantly predicted. The fact is that the global temperature has risen from 288K to 288.7K in a century and a half – an amazingly unchanging temperature that is very unusual in geologic terms – while CO2 has risen ≈40%. And the rise in temperature is along the same trend line from the LIA; there has been no acceleration in warming. None.
My central point was that excusing wrongdoing by pointing to wrongdoing in the past is unacceptable. The alarmist crowd has no morals or ethics, and this time around $billions of our money is being taken every year based on runaway global warming nonsense. And if there is “relentless vituperation”, it is well deserved, as anyone reading these emails can see. These scoundrels fight tooth and nail in every underhanded way they can to keep scientific skeptics from expressing their views. They pimp the climate peer review process, and do their utmost to get perceived enemies fired. Excusing their actions is like petting a dog that’s going to bite you in return. They need to be called on the carpet, not given a pass.
http://drtimball.com/2009/john-holdren/
Peter Taylor says:
November 30, 2011 at 11:30 am
“Incidently, all the current climate models were supposedly validated by replicating the 1950-1980 dip in warming using models of sulphate aerosol – and not one has owned up to the error. maybe they quietly redid the parameters hoping no one would spill the beans. I give chapter and verse of this in my book ‘Chill: a reassessment of global warming theory’.”
There was a recent piece, for which I unfortunately failed to grab a link, which discussed how these models produce very similar backcasts even though, or more accurately because, they all include very different values for the aerosol component. It is fairly obvious that they view aerosols as a nicely malleable fudge factor to create the illusion of validity where none exists.
The previous release of emails contains this little treasure from Phil Jones in 2005.
: “As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”
………regardless of the consequences……….WHAT?????!!!!!!
Are these the words of someone in full possession of his mental faculties? This is not a nice man. Is he a fan of Dr Strangelove? I can almost see him riding that atom bomb.
Gates says:
“This alternative explanation will of course upset skeptics who’d rather paint Dr. Jones as a money-grubbing tool of the political power elite, rather than a truly concerned scientist. The explanation you choose to accept for the motivations behind his comments, will, like most things in life, depend on what you want to see.”
Jones wrote his emails, so we’re past speculating on his motivations, his dishonesty, or his lack of ethics. They are right there for everyone to see.
I believe that came out of discussions over at Climate Audit and had to do with the whole “hockey stick” thing. They were first the “hockey team” and then just “the team”. Now I think “the cause” fits them better as strictly speaking “the team” were the people responsible for authoring, reviewing, and publishing the MBH “hockey stick” paper. “The Cause” has wider scope.
I believe this whole thread is illustrative of what these people are attempting to do.
The key in all of this is to first attempt to show that climate prior to recent times was very stable. In order to do that you need the long, flat handle of the Hockey Stick. One needs to moderate the MWP and the LIA to show temperatures being quite stable over the past 1000 years and then you show all this modern variability. If temperatures rise, it is because humans are emitting CO2. If temperatures fall, it is because humans are emitting sulfates from burning coal. In other words, the key is the notion that left alone, climate is stable, an only humans cause variation of it.
If a human caused warming doesn’t happen, they need to scramble for a human caused reason for cooling because the entire crux of this issue is supporting the creation of government policies that “manage” climate. It is sheer nonsense.
R. Gates says:
November 30, 2011 at 12:05 pm
“Of course there is an alternative and equally plausible explanation.” …
You are painting Jones into a corner as a publicly funded scientist who holds his own bias and belief over what the actual science and the scientific method tells him, er… well, it shows and I’m surprised that you admitted it as such.
Didn’t you take part in defending this so-called “Back up plan” of sulfates being the cause of the lack of global warming awhile back here on this very site, it was around the time Richard Black was getting a beat down for his article.
I wont bother looking for the page and a link to your comments, because we both know that I’m telling the truth.
BTW, all these excuses are wearing thin don’t ya think?
Ken Hall says:
November 30, 2011 at 10:40 am
“the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.”
Well that is telling…
No concern there for the world’s second biggest and fastest growing emitter of CO2 at that time, China? Now the world’s biggest.
McCracken has more to say about China and India in email #1752
Worth a read, but see also Peter Taylor’s comment above on Sulfates.
That last email says it all … it really is all political, else why keep that sulfate deal in the back pocket just in case it’s needed to explain away cooling. Seems to give plenty of context.
I doubt there will ever be much concern about China. This is because China does most of their stuff “in house”. They will use their own scientists who draw their own conclusions and aren’t on the social bandwagon at the UN. They won’t be contracting with UEA or Oxford or Carnegie Mellon or Penn State for climate advice so they aren’t a potential source of income for them. In fact, they might regard China as “dangerous” to their position if Chinese scientists were to come out saying AGW is flawed. So far AGW benefits China by causing the migration of a lot of industry there on a global scale. When it no longer benefits China, you will hear their real opinion.
Question: If warming really threatens to destroy human civilization, why was Jones hoping for warming?
Well, to quote Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds: “I’ll believe there is a climate crisis when those who tell me there is a climate crisis ACT like there is a climate crisis”.
You know, like NOT flying all around the world to tell me to turn down my thermostat and take the subway more.
My take on all of this. The CAGW advocates do believe their theory; they know they can’t empirically prove it, hence all the statistical nonsense. BUT — their top priority? getting paid. That’s what we are ultimately talking about.
No doubt Pro-AGW people, will happily shrug it off, wont believe it matters or will say its out of context but there is no doubt that saying
“I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong.”
Is preempting a result, cannot be science and sets the context in which these people have been working. IMO it doesn’t really get much clearer than that.
I wish i could be witty here, but i am too depressed. I do not understand why these people have gone so far down the road. Why do you need a ‘back up plan ‘ to use on skeptics? Isn’t being a scientist about gtting to the truth? When did being right become more important?
Smokey said: “I’ve said countless times here over the past several years, I think that 2xCO2 would probably result in a ≈1°C rise in temperature, ±0.5°C, based on radiative physics. But there is no evidence that CO2 causes “climate change” ”
You do rather tie yourself in knots, don’t you, Smokey: a 0.5-1.5 °C rise in mean global temperature is not “climate change”, but 2 or 3 °C, which you insist won’t happen, would be?
Is that what you are saying now, after first saying “there is no scientific evidence that CO2 causes climate change.”?
It seems to me that a good way of giving credibility to alarmist claims about AGW is to argue against them with vehement lack of of logic.
What’s most interesting, from what I’ve seen of the Climategate emails is that most prominent climate scientists do entertain doubts and uncertainty about the magnitude of AGW.
It is important to bring this fact to public attention. Skeptics should applaud such agnosticism among climate scientists, not ridicule it, although it is fair enough to criticize those who say one thing in private and another in public.
I came across a hacked voicemail trace between Dr Phil and Mr MacCracken….
“Y’all say a HUGE meteor is headed our way, Phil? And it’s gonna wipe us out unless we close down all our cheap power stations and scrap out transport systems?”
“Yes zur, Mr MacCracken. That sure iz the way of it. We in Norfolk have all these model runes that only special people can understand, and they tell us zo.”
“But Phil, what if the meteor changes course? I’ve heard there’s some kinda ‘fate’ out there that’ll mebbe make it miss us!”
“Thet can’t be Mr Mac! Nooo! Me and me Mann – I mean, ma men – have worked long and hard at the runes to prove we’re all a gonna die! We’re all doomed, I tell ya!”
“Och, Mr Phil, isn’t it a good thing that this ‘fate’ thing is going to save us?”
“No!! It can’t be, Mr Mac. I’m right! Mann is doomed! And I’d rather be proved right – and die in the attempt – than be this wrong!”
CanSpeccy, @10:38 on 11/30
I could see your point if the so-called scientists in these emails were discussing say, how best to make soap or something relatively esoteric, harmless and/or benign. But these so-called scientists have perverted peer review, tried to stack the deck on committees and panels, conspired to suppress research findings that contradicted theirs, lied about their data, and so on ad nauseum. All to promote an unproven idea/hypothesis/theory about CO2 causing climate change. Their pronouncements have resulted in draconian laws and regulations that have poor people starving and freezing and costing mankind hundreds of billions of dollars! What Mann, Jones and friends have been doing cannot be considered science, and they deserve all the invective heaped on them.
John from CA says:
November 30, 2011 at 11:13 am
“” John Holdren, is copied on this email”
That’s absolutely outrageous!!!!”
It makes it clear that all our governments used CAGW as a pretense for tax hikes and building of an alternative energy infrastructure to reduce dependency from the Middle East; and not one of them was ever dumb enough to take the catastrophic computer fantasies seriously.
It is not ClimateGate that makes CAGW, Durban, and Green jobs disappear from the MSM focus or the givernment’s focus, but the shale gas revolution.
In Germany, silently, drilling proceeds in an area half the size of North Rhine Westphalia. Greens are trying to ramp up Gasland style propaganda, but get no traction – their paymasters, the EU, have other interests.
David L. says: November 30, 2011 at 10:10 am
So switching to low sulfur coal in our power plants was actually a bad thing? Now to put the sulfur back into the gasoline and the “problem” is solved!!!!
———————————————
David: Sulfur is actually added to natural gas and propane, in the form of mercaptans. It’s done to add the bad smell so people can detect leaks. While the quantity of sulfur is less than diesel or jet fuels, it’s not orders of magnitude less.
Western sulphates reduced in the 70’s/80’s and temperatures rose, sulphates rise in the east and temperatures stop rising. The AGW fear machine requires rise to be associated with anthropogenic CO2 and all falls to be natural. The more tangled the web they weave the more it comes unravelled. What sort of a paradox is that? I call it a Crumoron. When can the real world get back to progress and development without Crumoronicness?
crosspatch says:
November 30, 2011 at 12:36 pm
I just want Dr. Jones to explain to me how a COLDER atmosphere can radiate heat and warm the surface.
You’ve been told the answer to this time and again. Your refusal to accept what you are shown, even by the hardest core sceptics, is one of the things that allows the warmists to paint us all as people who deny the scientificly obvious. Please stop asking this. It is stupid.
The colder atmosphere does not warm the surface directly. It prevents it from losing heat as fast. Which has the identical effect. Just like putting a colder blanket on a bed “warms” the bed.
Now stop being deliberately dense and asking this STUPID question! I don’t care that it makes you look like a fool, but I care deeply that idiocy like this taints the rest of us.
Wishing and hoping and
thinking and praying,
planning and dreaming….
Can I be so bold as to suggest the only reason we haven’t seen any significant warming this century so far is because we have the satellite dataset as a check, in the custody of some real scientists with integrity?
R. Gates says:
November 30, 2011 at 12:05 pm
………The explanation you choose to accept for the motivations behind his comments, will, like most things in life, depend on what you want to see.
_____________________________________________________________
In regards to climate science, I want to see some more of the important relationships currently judged as having a low level of scientific understanding moved into a high level of scientific understanding so that the research can work with quantifiable relationships instead of concensus assumptions adjusted with fudge factors. It is unwise to bet the economy on such uncertainty.
Jay Davis said:
“But these so-called scientists have perverted peer review, tried to stack the deck on committees and panels, conspired to suppress research findings that contradicted theirs, lied about their data, and so on ad nauseum. ”
But that is exactly how Isaac Newton, the creator of modern science, conducted the debate with Leibniz, variously described as “the last universal genius” and “the most comprehensive thinker since Aristotle,” over who had discovered the infinitesimal calculus.
That’s just how science is. A bunch of ambitious people trying to prove their point by just about any means, the only restriction being that reproducible observations have to be acknowledged as fact. Newton called Leibnitz a “thief” and Liebnitz’s advocates referred to Newton’s supporters as “toadies” and “apes”. Climate scientists are certainly no worse.
“Question: If warming really threatens to destroy human civilization, why was Jones hoping for warming?”
Because just like a drowning man he will cling to anything to keep his head above water . His smart enough to know no ones buying the lack of warming as ‘proof of climate change ‘ they spent far to much effort and far to long a time telling everyone there would be ‘warming ‘ for people to forget this claim and accept another .
Friends:
Having been promoting real science as opposition to ‘climate science’ since the early 1980s, I have watched ‘Climategate 2.0’ without commenting because the emails make my case for me.
I write now to address the question posed by Maurizio Morabito (omnologos) at November 30, 2011 at 9:50 am, that was accurately answered with topical points by JohnH at November 30, 2011 at 11:12 am, but obfuscated with disingenuous tripe by CanSpeccy at November 30, 2011 at 10:58 am.
Maurizio Morabito asked;
“ What’s the sulfate hypothesis?”
I explain its importance as follows.
In the period from ~1940 to ~1970 the global mean temperature seemed to cool. This global cooling was claimed by scare-mongers to be a threat to the world and a result of sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions from power stations (see the post from JohnH for explanation of the supposed mechanism).
Then the global mean temperature seemed to warm. By 1980 there had been a decade of global warming so the global cooling scare could not be sustained. Therefore, (mostly the same) scaremongers morphed the global cooling scare into a global warming scare. The global warming was claimed by the scare-mongers to be a threat to the world and a result of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power stations.
The period of cooling from ~1940 to ~1970 was excused by saying it was probably the cooling from sulphate emissions having overwhelmed the warming from CO2 emissions.
Then the period of warming from ~1970 ceased at ~2000. This was excused by claiming that sulphate emissions from power stations in developing countries (e.g. China) were overwhelmed the warming from CO2 emissions; i.e. the sulphate excuse for pre-1970 global cooling was resurrected. This excuse for lack of warming since ~2000 is the ‘sulfate hypothesis’.
However, the ‘sulfate hypothesis’ fails to fulfil the desire to scare about global temperature change if it results in no significant change to mean global temperature (as has been seen since 2000). Therefore, the scaremongers need to replace it.
Richard
Peter Taylor @11:30 a.m.
Your book “Chill” is an excellent examination of the current state of climate science. Your environmental credentials are impressive. It should have caused a crumbling of the alarmist position; that it hasn’t is further proof that this isn’t about science.
Newton called Leibnitz a “thief” and Liebnitz’s advocates referred to Newton’s supporters as “toadies” and “apes”.
Yes, but they weren’t spending a heap of public money while they did it…
R. Gates;
Of course there is an alternative and equally plausible explanation. Jones really does believe that long term human induced warming is a serious issue that requires attention, and feared that any short-term “natural variability” that caused short-term cooling, no matter the cause (sulfates, quiet sun, PDO, etc) might mask the long-term warming and forestall the global action required to slow the build-up of greenhouse gases. This alternative explanation will of course upset skeptics who’d rather paint Dr. Jones as a money-grubbing tool of the political power elite, rather than a truly concerned scientist. The explanation you choose to accept for the motivations behind his comments, will, like most things in life, depend on what you want to see.>>>
Really R. Gates, I expect a better attempt out of you than that. I’ve seen your work, I know you are capable of it. Please try again. There’s just no fun in debunking you and making your comments look silly when all one has to do is read what you said because the rest of us are mostly thinking to ourselves….has he switched to 75% warmist and 25% comic?
I’d hate to give up our close working relationship, but right now I might have to drop you and pick up this CanSpeccy guy as my favourite troll to torture. I’m waiting to see if he has any real staying power such as you have demonstrated over the years, but seriously, I need just a wee bit of a challenge. Could you please try again?
CanSpeccy says:
“You do rather tie yourself in knots, don’t you, Smokey…”
Not really, CanSpeccy. Note that I put quotation marks around “climate change.” Everyone has their own definition of “climate change”. It’s a vague, nebulous term that was morphed from “climate disruption”, and “runaway global warming” before that. It’s an alarmist term that constantly moves the goal posts, because none of their numerous predictions came about.
A rise in temperature, however, is specifically quantifiable. A 1°C rise is measurable, unlike “climate change”. The climate always changes – and those changes are regional, not global. The Northern Hemisphere has warmed by about 0.7K, while the Southern Hemisphere hasn’t. Climate means specific regions, such as, “Italy has a Mediterranean climate.” But now the word is widely misused. I admit I’ve used it in place of “climate disruption” and “runaway global warming”. Like most here, I know the secret handshake. “Climate change” means whatever the alarmist crowd wants it to mean. And they always say it like it’s something bad. Me, I think a 2 or 3 degree rise in temperature would be fine, since it would primarily take place at night, in the winter, and in the higher latitudes. Unfortunately, the odds are that the planet will get colder, not warmer. Any further warming will likely be temporary and beneficial. Warm is good; cold kills.
Finally, I agree with you that there has always been intense competition at times between scientists. But it is infinitely worse now, because those falsely demonizing “carbon” have arranged to game the system so that unwilling taxpayers are forced to subsidize their grand lifestyles and pour public loot into undeserving third-rate institutions and NGOs with a one-world government agenda, instead of using the old system of benefactors. CO2=CAGW is simply a government funded cover story. That’s the big difference. As IPCC WG-3 Co-Chair Ottmar Edenhofer candidly admits: “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
Look at this article’s title. The principals know the truth, as their emails show. Therefore, they are deliberately lying to the public in order to keep the payola flowing. Before the two email dumps they could have been given the benefit of the doubt. But no more. They are knowingly engaging in scientific misconduct. You can apologize for them, but I won’t.
This has long been one of my pet peeves about the whole climate debate. If the “scientists” had any real morality at all, they would jump for joy at finding evidence that they are wrong. They predict catastrophe, and cheer every bit of news they can which suggests that catastrophe is really going to happen. Confronted with evidence that no catastrophe is at hand, do they wipe their brows and say “Whew, glad it turned out I was wrong”?
No. They wail, complain, and gnash their teeth. They make it clear that their true feelings are that they are RIGHT and that a catastrophe SHOULD be at hand. They CHEER for the catastrophe! Why?
For the children of course. Oh, not my children, or Anthony’s children, they do it for THEIR children. 50 years from now when their grandchildren read the history books, how will they respond to the news that their grandparents were charlatans? I think I can guess.
“Gee, so that’s how we got rich. Cool. I wonder if I’m getting a Ferrari or a Porsche for my birthday”
No shame. Money conquers ethics.
But that is exactly how Isaac Newton, the creator of modern science, conducted the debate with Leibniz, variously described as “the last universal genius” and “the most comprehensive thinker since Aristotle,” over who had discovered the infinitesimal calculus.
I don’t doubt that many scientific debates have become heated and personal; but the dispute between Newton and Leibniz wasn’t about science, it was about credit for a discovery. Whether Newton or Leibniz invented calculus is a matter of history, not science.
R Barker says:
November 30, 2011 at 3:16 pm
R. Gates says:
November 30, 2011 at 12:05 pm
………The explanation you choose to accept for the motivations behind his comments, will, like most things in life, depend on what you want to see.
_____________________________________________________________
In regards to climate science, I want to see some more of the important relationships currently judged as having a low level of scientific understanding moved into a high level of scientific understanding so that the research can work with quantifiable relationships instead of concensus assumptions adjusted with fudge factors. It is unwise to bet the economy on such uncertainty.
______
I wouldn’t disagree with your last sentence, and also note that it has nothing to do with Dr. Jones’ motives. If, as is plausible, Dr. Jones really believes that humanity is facing something awful in the future unless we get our CO2 emissions under control, then his sentiment and emails make complete sense. His “wishing for warming” to show up, in that context, means he doesn’t want to see anything (like short term cooling) that might, even for a brief period, pursade policymaker not to proceed with some kind of regulatory actions. In Dr. Jones’ mind, there may be no time to waste.
But note, my first line in my reply. I agree that it is currently unwise to bet the current economy on possible future climate disruption from AGW, as there might be better uses of our resources and attentions. But either taking action now, or not taking action now, are both bets on the future.
Look at the emails that reference Edenhofer:
0098.txt
2242.txt
2664.txt
5087.txt
I found the one from the WWF particularly interesting:
Apparently the shift key is broken on his keyboard but as you can see, this has nothing to do with REALLY reducing CO2, or at least CO2 increases are LESS important than economically punishing utilities which appears to be the real goal here. Again, using AGW to promote a policy agenda.
R. Gates;
If, as is plausible, Dr. Jones really believes that humanity is facing something awful in the future unless we get our CO2 emissions under control, then his sentiment and emails make complete sense. >>>
Going down hill R. Gates. That was just lame. 50% warmist and 50% lame comedian?
Please, give it another shot.
If I understand the context of the communications correctly it leads me to this- the parties in the communications (including someone on Mr. Obama’s staff) are saying the AGW Science isn’t Settled in private.
R. Gates says:
November 30, 2011 at 4:40 pm
===================================
Gates, unfortunately history says that there have been a lot of people, that truly believed something…..
…and did awful things to humanity
Nothing has changed.
@R Gates
“Of course there is an alternative and equally plausible explanation. Jones really does believe that long term human induced warming is a serious issue that requires attention”
+++++++++
He is free to believe what he likes. He is not however above the law, whether of FOIA or libel or fraud or misallocation of funds, nor of false witness.
We are free not to believe a single thought, jot or tittle of the universe in which Jones lives.
CAGW is clearly a sham, and not even a very good one. It just makes more money than most scams for those perpetrating it at the expense of a long-suffering, increasingly deprived humanity.
The doctors have erred.
They know not the disease.
They know not the cure.
A scientist preparing a “back up theory” just in case his primary explanation is wrong?
A prime example of confirmation bias.
R. Gates says….
“If, as is plausible, Dr. Jones really believes that humanity is facing something awful in the future unless we get our CO2 emissions under control, then his sentiment and emails make complete sense.”
Thanks for the laugh.
Yes, I suppose, if we ignore all his crimes, we might give dear old Dr. Jones the Nobel in recognition of his “sincere” efforts.
C’mon R. Gates, give it another shot.
I’ve got this great riposte all ready to go based on the travesty of the missing heat per Kevin Trenberth.
Or maybe you could point to a quote by Hansen (or Trenberth, or Mann, or Briffa, or Hansen, or Santer, or any of the big climawarmaholics) that goes along the lines of:
“Well, I’m really hoping I’m wrong here because if I’m right things could get real bad, but these are my results…”
Something, anything, that shows that these arrogant pieces of total sh*t aren’t actually cheering for a disaster that will kill a few billion people.
Anything R. Gates?
CanSpeccy, as MJW pointed out, Newton and Leibnitz were fighting for the credit for “inventing” calculus. Phil Jones has been fighting to prevent his data and methodology, upon which his claims of “global warming” are based, from being examined. And if I read the emails correctly, he doesn’t even have all of his raw data. What Jones is doing doesn’t even come close to qualifying as “scientific” debate. And the same can be said about Michael “hide the decline” Mann. Instead of debating McIntyre about his “hockey stick” data and methodology, Mann wants someone to dig up dirt on McIntyre to discredit him. That certainly doesn’t qualify as science. The emails are full of this crap. These charlatans are causing great harm to humanity through their antics while amassing wealth for themselves.
crosspatch says: November 30, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Look at the emails that reference Edenhofer:
0098.txt, 2242.txt, 2664.txt, 5087.txt
I found the one from the WWF particularly interesting:
as much as i do agree that all possibilities to render dangerous nuclear waste into less dangerous one should be explored, it is by no means acceptable that limited funds to generate support for climate-friendly measures to cut GHG be used for nuclear research. utilities earned a fortune with that dirty technology in the past – and most are still subsidised. therefore they shall pay for its save removal incl. the waste.
Apparently the shift key is broken on his keyboard but as you can see, this has nothing to do with REALLY reducing CO2, or at least CO2 increases are LESS important than economically punishing utilities which appears to be the real goal here. Again, using AGW to promote a policy agenda
—————————
Yeah, it’s not about reducing CO2 emissions (which nuke power plants do very well). First, the “dirty” technologies are not net subsidized. The subsidies are a tiny fraction of the taxes these industries pay. Second, nuke power plants collect decommissioning costs as part of their rates during their operating lifetime. That’s why there’s a decommissioning fee in California; it’s to pay for the early shutdown of an operating reactor. And if California votes for the latest petition cum referendum to shutter the 4 still operating, we in California will see rolling blackouts AND higher bills to pay for the more expensive renewables and to pay the decommissioning fees not collected in the operating rates.
Reference: http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2011/11/29/ballot-initiative-would-close-california_1920_s-nuclear-plants_2c00_-cause-rolling-blackouts-112901.aspx
Third, subsidies for nukes are mostly in the form of government sponsored research and price breaks on government fees for licensing. Remember, it takes many YEARS of effort on the part of power generators to get a license.
These guys want the world under trouble so they can win with their politics. This is a political stance — but it has nothing to do with real science.
@son of mulder says:
November 30, 2011 at 2:23 pm
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Son of mulder
I would be interested in seeing a source for your comment. If you have a link to any data covering sulphate emissions through the 1970s (preferably as from 1940) onwards, I would certainly like to have a look at it.
Incidentally, I recall reading in some of the released emails that data on that was poor which suggests that there is some data but likely to be unreliable (or perhaps not much assistance to ‘the cause’).
PS. Perhaps Mr Gates, if you are reading this, you may be able to assist since you are usually able to refer to a wide ranging data bank.
Sure, a bit more
> > acid deposition, but it is not harmful over the ocean (so we
> > only/mainly emit for trajectories heading out over the ocean)
But, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, BUT! I thought all these warmist types were so very, very worried about CO2 causing “increased acidification of the ocean” (still don’t understand how something so far from being an acid, such as the high pH ocean, can get “increased acidification”, but oh well. Anyway, how is that Sulphur oxide acid deposition is better than (weaker) CO2 acidification?
Just wondering; I’m no chemist 🙂
Was James Hansen copied on this one?
After all he recently came out with a paper suggesting that sulphates effects had been underestimated by a factor of three…..
Malcom;
But, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, BUT! I thought all these warmist types were so very, very worried about CO2 causing “increased acidification of the ocean” (still don’t understand how something so far from being an acid, such as the high pH ocean, can get “increased acidification”, but oh well. Anyway, how is that Sulphur oxide acid deposition is better than (weaker) CO2 acidification?>>>
Better still, how is it they claim there will be a positive feedback from warmer temps because as the oceans warm they will release more CO2 to the atmosphere, causing the amount of CO2 to increase, while also claiming so much will be absorbed that it will change the pH of the ocean…
Up is down. Left is right. Colder is warmer. More rain causes drought. It is all very logical once you get used to it.
richard verney says:
November 30, 2011 at 7:21 pm
PS. Perhaps Mr Gates, if you are reading this, you may be able to assist since you are usually able to refer to a wide ranging data bank.
Unfortunately, aerosol measurements only go back in a reliable format only a few decades, but a good source, is the Earth System Global Monitoring division. The general site for aerosols is here:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aero/net/mlo/index.html#plots
With a nice chart showing the increase over the past decade here:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aero/net/mlo/stat_plots/BaG0_TimeSeries.html
Aerosols have undoubtedly increased over the past few decades, with a combination of sources being the cause, multiple medium to smaller volcanoes as well as increases from China.
“Smug Grins”!!!! It seems every time I read something by Jones he simply shows himself to be even more shallow than I thought he could be!
Can he not stop, even for a short time and imagine the good all that money he and others have wasted could have done for real environmental/health projects? Apparently the ego’s of these “Scientists” are above a little humility!
R. Gates;
The general site for aerosols is here:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aero/net/mlo/index.html#plots
With a nice chart showing the increase over the past decade here:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aero/net/mlo/stat_plots/BaG0_TimeSeries.html
Nicely done R. Gates. Declare yourself a source of good information, claim expertise, post a link or two, draw some conclusions. Yup, BaG0 sure looks like it is increasing since they started collecting data in 1995. From that same site:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aero/net/mlo/stat_plots/N_TimeSeries.html
decreasing since 1975
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aero/net/mlo/stat_plots/BsR0_TimeSeries.html
pretty much flat (very slight increase) since 1975
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aero/net/mlo/stat_plots/BsG0_TimeSeries.html
flat since 1975
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aero/net/mlo/stat_plots/asBR0_TimeSeries.html
declining since 1975
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aero/net/mlo/stat_plots/wG0_TimeSeries.html
declining since 1995
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aero/net/mlo/stat_plots/wG1_TimeSeries.html
declining since 1995
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aero/net/mlo/stat_plots/BsG1_TimeSeries.html
flat since 2000
Really R. Gates? Cherry picking? How many graphs on that page are flat or declning compared to the one (short one at that) which shows an increase? You like getting wedgies? You like losing bets?
What keep you going anyway?
That could change. Most of that is due to regulations imposed by the executive branch agencies of various governments.
“The colder atmosphere does not warm the surface directly. It prevents it from losing heat as fast. Which has the identical effect. Just like putting a colder blanket on a bed “warms” the bed.”
Help me out here…
If the DeltaT between the cold atmosphere and the surfaces increases, how is the surface heat “prevented” from losing heat. I think it’s the opposite, that the heat losses/unit time would increase.
An old question for engineering exams was: “You are at an Antarctic Ice Station. You are delivering coffee to a colleague at a sub-station 100 meters away. You have to go outside in -50 degree weather to deliver the coffee. The person getting the coffee likes it as hot as possible.
He also likes it with cream.
So the question is, should you put the cream in the coffee before, or after, you cross the 100 meters in minus 50 degree temperatures.
We were taught that it was a semi-log relationship, that the larger initial Delta T, the faster the temperature change.
So why would a colder atmospheric temperature vis a vis the surface PREVENT or even slow surface heat loss?
Make him use cremora???
Anna Lemma:
You provide an elegant attempt at dangling a red herring in your post at November 30, 2011 at 11:42 pm.
Your question has been answered several times by several people (including me) on WUWT so – if you honestly want an answer – then search this site and you will get it. But your question is not relevant in any way to the subject of this thread which is the behaviour of Jones (and his cronies) in response to recent lack of global warming.
I shall refuse to answer your question here because it is a blatant attempt to side-track the discussion. And I ask all others to ignore it, too.
Richard
I’ve only scanned previous comments so apologies if this has already been mentioned.
After Jones says that he hopes the lack of warming won’t carry on to 2020 he goes on to say:
“I’d rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office
press release with Doug’s paper that said something like –
half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on
record, 1998!”
That’s a sixteen year period and at the time Jones wrote that email, January 2009, HADCRUT3 hadn’t shown any of the intervening years breaking that 1998 record. That’s nine years – ten if Jones already had the 2008 figure – so Jones should already have known that it was already impossible that half the years to 2014 could be warmer than 1998 because fewer than half were left. It might have been just an oversight, or it might have been Jones making a mistake with primary school level maths, but with everything else that’s gone on can we rule out the possibility of some jiggling to make a few years after 1999 that weren’t quite warm enough for him a little bit warmer?
Whilst all right thinking people now know that this AGW is a crock, how come the Governments around the world are still wasting money when times are hard? Perhaps corruption is wider spread than I realise.
Greg Holmes:
At December 1, 2011 at 1:19 am you ask:
“Whilst all right thinking people now know that this AGW is a crock, how come the Governments around the world are still wasting money when times are hard? Perhaps corruption is wider spread than I realise.”
No, it is simpler than that. And the reason “Governments around the world are still wasting money” explains why politicians have been and are so keen to fund Phil Jones et al.
Governments need to raise taxes.
People don’t like to pay taxes.
So, Governments desire a tax that people want to pay or, failing that, a tax that people feel they cannot reasonably oppose.
No moral person could object to paying a tax that is to save the world for our children and grandchildren.
The need for taxation increases “when times are hard”.
Richard
“richard verney says:
November 30, 2011 at 7:21 pm
I would be interested in seeing a source for your comment. If you have a link to any data covering sulphate emissions through the 1970s (preferably as from 1940) onwards, I would certainly like to have a look at it.”
Richard, Try this. It’s been one of my hobby horses since i first looked at AGW. The overall balance of sulphate aerosols has been to reduce in the west with the clean air acts after massive post war growth and subsequent rise in the east. Historically steady rise since 1850 so suppressing bounce back from little ice age then large growth and redistribution since the war.
http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/News-sulfur-emissions-rise-after-10-year-decline-021511.aspx?xmlmenuid=51
Hidden agenda. It has never been about global warming but about keeping the research funds flowing and taxation powers.
They were losing public when we had the ‘hottest’ 10 years on the record. If it cools in the decades to come then it game over! The fingerprint of natural variation (or sulfate ;O) would have ruled the waves.
You, dear sir, are giving liars a bad name. Stop it!
Campaign against Climate Change
Make sure you get to
BRITAIN’S BIGGEST-EVER DEMO AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE on Sat Dec 3rd in London
The London Climate March will go past 10 Downing Street where a letter will
be handed in demanding that the British government reaffirm its commitment
to a climate treaty with legally binding targets, before finishing at the US
embassy where the speakers will include
Michael Meacher MP (Environment Minister 1997-2003)
George Monbiot
Norman Baker MP (Lib-Dem Shadow Environment Minister)
Caroline Lucas MEP (Green Party)
Plus Fazlun Khalid from IFEES (Islamic Foundation for Ecology and the
Environmental Sciences), Ruth Jarman from Christian Ecology Link, Peter
Bunyard science editor from the Ecologist, Nick Rau from Friends of the
Earth and a speaker from Rising tide.
More details http://www.campaigncc.org
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0312.txt&search=s.www
“BRITAIN’S BIGGEST-EVER DEMO AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE”
King canute has already signed up!
Belief has nothing to do with it. He is either right or wrong, and increasingly the observed evidence is against him. Jones is not an honest scientist. He is a political scientist doing his best to drive the agenda forward. Future generations will read your posts and come to understand how self delusion illustrates itself.
And I keep telling them that the models don’t work and to look at the real data but they won’t listen.
I actually read somewhere that the global warming thing is a cyclical event that happens every so-and-so millions of years, which actually explains a lot of geological events.
Personally I do not think that we are the cause for global warming, just a catalyst. The whole theory might have sprouted off a scientist making a few experiments that somehow got blown to bigger proportions.
I am not a scientist and I do care about Earth a great deal, I will try and do anything to take better care of our home, but I really don’t think that we are causing global warming.
A Lovell says:
November 30, 2011 at 12:47 pm
The previous release of emails contains this little treasure from Phil Jones in 2005.
: “As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”
These people have brainwashed themselves. The term “climate change, for CAGW is in itself intensley political. If CAGW does not happen if will not prove the science “right” as science is never “wrong’ it only indicates something, via the scientific method, until further facts and observations, via the scientific method, show otherwise. Science, currently shows that the polotics of CAGW are very wrong.
I would think that someone predicting, acurately, long range temperature trends would not only solidify their reputation, but gain support for their theories on what the future holds. If there is to be a 10 year hiatus, and you predicted it, celebrate it! But to fear the truth is illogical, and shows an adherance to a religious faith instead of any type of scientific endeavor.
When will Norfolk Constabulary start feeling a few collars..? Surely ‘Misappropriation of public funds’ will do for a start..?
R. Gates
“Of course there is an alternative and equally plausible explanation. Jones really does believe that long term human induced warming is a serious issue that requires attention”
This, in light of all the emails is not a plausbile explanation, rspecially sense his own words show he does not really care about the consequences. “As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”
This statement is both political and selfish and unscientific. Alas Gates, you still defend the indefensible.
David L. says:
November 30, 2011 at 10:10 am
“So switching to low sulfur coal in our power plants was actually a bad thing?”
No! Warming is a good thing.
“Now to put the sulfur back into the gasoline and the “problem” is solved!!!!”
If you consider warming to be a problem then yes that will solve it. In any objective evaluation where the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few warming is beneficial by a rather large margin.
John Moran says:
November 30, 2011 at 11:04 am
MacCracken has an interesting outlook on sulphates vs ocean acidification:
“Sure, a bit more acid deposition, but it is not harmful over the ocean (so we only/mainly emit for trajectories heading out over the ocean) and the impacts of deposition may well be less that for global warming (will be a tough comparison, but likely worth looking at). “
—————–
I noticed that plus cc to John Holdren.
How chummy are these guys?
son of mulder says:
December 1, 2011 at 3:02 am
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
Son of Mulder
Thanks for the link. It was an interesting read.
I still think that the point I made at richard verney says: November 30, 2011 at 12:29 pm is valid.
From eyeballing the graph set out in your link, the graph suggests that the US started curbing/ reducing sulphate emissions around 1975 and Europe around 1980. Levels of Sulphate emissions remained high throughout the 1980s since initially the reduction by the US and more particularly by Europe was modest at first and then during the latter part of the 1980s emissions from other developing counties began to escalate.
The net effect of this is that there were high levels of sulphate emissions throughout the entire period of the 1970s and 80s and the question that has to be answered is why did these sulphate emissions not suppress/nullify the warming induced by the CO2 emissions during this period, ie., during the period 1970 to end of 1989 (assuming that CO2 emissions cause warming)?
I can accept, in principle, the argument that Sulphate emissions diminished sufficiently during the 1990s so that they were no longer sufficient to suppress/nullify the CO2 induced warming (assuming that CO2 emissions cause warming) and hence during the 1990s global warming was observed.
I can accept the argumate that Sulphate emissions due to the growing emissions from developing countries means that they mask the warming now taking place due to current CO2 emissions (assuming that CO2 emissions cause warming). This in principle could explain the lack of observed warming during the 2000s.
However, the real problem is that the sulphate emissions today are no higher than they were in the 1970s and 1980s. If they were not sufficient in the 1970s and 1980s to suppress/nullify warming caused by CO2 emissions back then (ie., 1970 to end of 1989) how come are they able to suppress/nullify warming caused by CO2 emissions today?
This is a particular problem since the total atmospheric CO2 levels in the 1970s and 1980s were less than today so it would therefore have been easier for the sulphate emissions to suppress/nullify any warming caused by CO2 levels back in the 1970s and 1980s.
Do you have any views/comments?
In my opinion there is a serious inconsistency with the sulphate emission argument. It does not stack up to proper examination.
we now have the same level of emissions that were present
Moderators
Please correct if possible.
My last para should have read
“In my opinion there is a serious inconsistency with the sulphate emission argument. It does not stack up to proper examination since we now have the same level of sulphate emissions that were present in the 1970s and 80s and yet that level of emissions did not supress/mask any CO2 induced warming.”
I think the USA should pay the entire $100,000,000,000 to fund the CAGW agenda.
But, only if they take it out of our current budgeted without increasing taxes.
(figure the odds)
Plan B’s are for politics.
Science doesn’t have a “plan B”.
In science, the results, support our premise, are ambiguous, or fail to support, the THEORY.
Debate, and interpretation of results, are “the crucible” of science.
In science there is no need for a “team”, or a “cause”. Those are politcal concepts that are anathma, to the curiosity that leads to scientific discovery.
Where is the curiosity?
Where is the desire to understand?
Where is the scientific method?
You won’t find them in these emails, and that is what the pubilc was paying for.
Jones talks and acts like he believes (from faith not from reason) the science he is in charge of can be ‘framed’ (?aka gamed?) to serve the ends of his non-scientific based ideological cause. He is a profoundly unenlightened man. His ‘framing’ of science both destroys science and the case for any rational basis of his ideological cause.
Skeptical (aka independent) thinkers could not have had a more useful person than Jones in charge at UEA CRU because he became the prima fascia evidence against his own science and his own ideological cause.
Likewise, the same result with Mann at both UVa and at PSU. Both his behavior and Jones’ will be the albatrosses hung shamefully around the necks of their ‘framed’ science and malignant ideology.
Their scientific ‘framing’ and ulterior motives for their ’causes’ are the gifts that keep on giving validation to the critiques of independent thinkers.
John
“richard verney says:
December 1, 2011 at 8:16 am ”
Richard, The move of aerosol production from west to east will tend to have some local effects eg tend to cause warming where there is a reduction and cooling where there is an increase because of the relatively short life of sulphates in the atmosphere it won’t get well mixed. Additionally, globally I view the redistribution of production like a giant butterfly in lorenz’s analogy of the chaotic nature of climate. I don’t know how much impact such a move would have on the measured average global temperature where there is a predominance of weather stations historically in the west but there will be some skewing of effect. Also there would be a tendancy to suppress daily high temperatures more than daily minimums whereas CO2 would have the opposite effect in raising daily minimums more than daily highs. There is surely some information svailable from such analysis of raw temperature highs and lows.
Until such analysis is available (i don’t know of it) it puts a massive question mark into the middle of standard AGW theory.
=?gb2312?B?JUQ1JUM1JUMwJUYyJUMzJUY0IA==?= ???@263.net
From: “Phil Jones”
To: “%D5%C5%C0%F2%C3%F4”
Phil
At 08:56 19/10/2007, =?gb2312?B?JUQ1JUM1JUMwJUYyJUMzJUY0IA==?= wrote:
From: “Phil Jones”
To: “%D5%C5%C0%F2%C3%F4”
From: “Phil Jones”
To: “Rean Guoyoo”
Cc: “%D5%C5%C0%F2%C3%F4” , <
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0554.txt&search=yahoo.com+kulmala
The fact that there is no warm spot in the atmosphere radiating heat down onto the ground not only puts a massive question mark on the AGW hypothesis, it basically nullifies it. Atmosphere must warm first. If you have anomalously high surface temperatures but no corresponding anomaly in the atmosphere at altitude, then you are not seeing GH warming, it must be something else.
AGW absolutely requires an increase in atmospheric temperature that has never been spotted to date. And I believe all measures of back radiation to the ground were pretty much invalidated when they learned that the IRTs (infrared thermometers) they were using were specifically calibrated NOT to show the wavelengths we would expect to see from an AGW signal. In fact, they were calibrated to show everything BUT those wavelengths.
To R. Courtney, Duster, John H., or anyone else.
Regarding the mechanism of sulphate emissions damping the warming from GHGs:
Duster (at Nov. 30 – 10:56 am) seems to suggest that the mechanism requires that the SO2 (Duster, did you really mean “SO3”?) molecules nucleate ice droplets/crystals at high altitudes, and it is the latter which reflect incoming Solar short wave back into space. Is it the case that the sulphate molecules on their own cannot/do not reflect incoming Solar? Can both sorts of effect occur, say depending on altitude?
UHI at China.
“Dear Phil,
In the past years, we did some analyses of the urban warming effect on surface air
temperature trends in China, and we found the effect is pretty big in the areas we
analyzed. This is a little different from the result you obtained in 1990.”
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0044.txt&search=%3D%3Fgb2312%3FB%3FJUQ1JUM1JUMwJUYyJUMzJUY0IA%3D%3D%3F%3D+
Leigh B. Kelley:
At December 1, 2011 at 10:33 am you ask me among others:
” Regarding the mechanism of sulphate emissions damping the warming from GHGs:
Duster (at Nov. 30 – 10:56 am) seems to suggest that the mechanism requires that the SO2 (Duster, did you really mean “SO3″?) molecules nucleate ice droplets/crystals at high altitudes, and it is the latter which reflect incoming Solar short wave back into space. Is it the case that the sulphate molecules on their own cannot/do not reflect incoming Solar? Can both sorts of effect occur, say depending on altitude?”
I answer,
Q1. yes mostly
Q2. yes.
Richard
Global warming, manmade warming, climate change . . . call it what you wish – it’s an ideologically driven political movement that has nothing to do with real science. The Climate Liars are fascists pushing an insane political agenda by scaring people into believing the world is going to end unless we do what they want. It doesn’t hurt that they are backed by the sleazy lamestream media who are either clueless about the ‘science’ behind the scam or know what’s going on but support the political agenda of the Climate Liars. I am apalled, disgusted and have been nauseated many times by the Climate Liars propaganda. I hope the world wakes up before it’s too late. I don’t relish the idea of trying to survive in a Ecofascist state, freezing in the dark to save the planet from a nonexistant problem.
Are Chinese weathes stations rural, or not?
“>
>> Dear Qingxiang,
> I haven’t heard anything yet from JGR – it will likely take
>about 3 months.
> I’ve been talking to Wei-Chyung Wang on the phone over the weekend.
> He wondered if you can help him. He is hopeful you can send me
> (and I can send on) any site history information you have about
> the 42 sites (both rural and urban that we used back in 1990.
> Back in September last year you sent me the monthly temperature
> data fro these sites. I could see which ones had been adjusted and
> which hadn’t. What Wei-Chyung and I would like from you is any
> site history information for these 82 site (you could only find
> the temperature data for 82 and not all 84 we had used originally).
> Ideally this would be information on site moves etc., but if you just
> had information on the number of moves that would be useful.
> This is more important for the stations we had said were rural in 1990.
>
> I’ve cc’d Wei-Chyung on this email, so you could reply directly to
> him to say what you can, could or might be able to send to us – in Chinese!
>
> Best Regards
> Phil”
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1003.txt&search=%25D5%25C5%25C0%25F2%25C3%25F4
thinkinglazy says:
December 1, 2011 at 5:14 am
I actually read somewhere that the global warming thing is a cyclical event that happens every so-and-so millions of years, which actually explains a lot of geological events..
_____
Might want to figure out where that “somewhere” was that you read this. Doesn’t sound like a scientific statement. Milankovitch forcing happens on the order of tens of thousands of years. Something that would be cyclical on the order of millions of years would have to be galactic in origin and not simple Milankovitch cycles.
If the models, AGW projections, climate sensitivity estimates…. have not proved to be correct and snow isn’t a whimsical thing of the past and the snows of Kilimanjaro have returned and the glaciers have started expanding again, and the polar bears are doing fine and its raining as usual in the Amazon and the sea level rise has stopped and the barbeque summers didn’t materialize in UK and frozen crocs, llama, fishes, domesitc animals in Brazil, Ecuadora weren’t supposed to happen and 250 children froze to death in Peru from the worst cold on record and substantial snows in Johannesburg and Capetown surprised citizens and Lake Chad began to fill up again and hurricanes frequency and damage declined and their has been no statistically significant warming in 15 years and the Hudson River parkway is still above water…..and you never predicted one iota of these things, why would one be so adamant that the science is solid? Why would you keep faith in the models if the future continues to unfold as a surprise? These are not Tablets from the Mountain. The task isn’t to MAKE the theory work, to find fanciful explanations as to why it is not predicting what is happening. You need to scrap useless models and try to redo the job, making adjustments (such as chopping down climate sensitivity, etc.) and, if the best model turns out to indicate that there is no disaster awaiting us, then so be it.
R. Gates says:
November 30, 2011 at 12:05 pm
“Of course there is an alternative and equally plausible explanation.” …
R. I liked you better as a feisty, clever combatant. Please don’t become an apologist and spin doctor to make charlatans into high minded philosophers.
I not a scientist but anyone qualifies as a political analyst.
It is more than fair to state that, these e-mails reveal more politics than science.
Put bluntly, these schemers have the wind up their skirts because their attempted coup has failed……not a coup d’etat…..but a coup de monde….
richard verney says:
December 1, 2011 at 8:20 am
Moderators
Please correct if possible.
My last para should have read
“In my opinion there is a serious inconsistency with the sulphate emission argument. It does not stack up to proper examination since we now have the same level of sulphate emissions that were present in the 1970s and 80s and yet that level of emissions did not supress/mask any CO2 induced warming.”
____
Are all the other variables identical? This is the problem with something as complex as the climate. You have multiple factors, each with their own unique set of feedbacks, leading to a complex dynamical system. CO2 and human sulphate emission are only two of a larger set of factors that must be considered.
A few things to consider:
1) What was the status of solar output at all energy levels at the time?
2) What was the status of the major longer-term ocean cycles such as the PDO and NAO?
3) What was the status of volcanic activity?
Very hard to compare two time periods without knowing and looking all the factors that make up the longer and shorter term climate in such a comparison.
Jimbo says:
December 1, 2011 at 4:12 am
R. Gates
“Of course there is an alternative and equally plausible explanation. Jones really does believe that long term human induced warming is a serious issue that requires attention”
Belief has nothing to do with it. He is either right or wrong, and increasingly the observed evidence is against him. Jones is not an honest scientist. He is a political scientist doing his best to drive the agenda forward. Future generations will read your posts and come to understand how self delusion illustrates itself.
____
Since I am not the subject of the emails, it would be hard for my posts to illustrate “self delusion”. I simply suggested an alternative explanation for Dr. Jones’ statements that is consistent.
I’d put this in the Tips area but it locks up my computer something horrible. But tracks with this thread also.
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_935_en.html
[quote] GENEVA/DURBAN, 29 November 2011 (WMO) – Global temperatures in 2011 are currently the tenth highest on record and are higher than any previous year with a La Niña event, which has a relative cooling influence. The 13 warmest years have all occurred in the 15 years since 1997. The extent of Arctic sea ice in 2011 was the second lowest on record, and its volume was the lowest.[/quote]
R. Gates says:
December 1, 2011 at 12:21 pm
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
I agree with your comments.
However put in context, the upshot of those matters is to suggest that climate sensitivity to CO2 is modest:
IF CO2 levels – Sulphate levels for the period 1970 to end of 1989 did not exceed CO2 levels – Sulphate levels for the period 2000 to date AND IF there was significant warming during the former period but no significant warming during the latter period then what drove the warming during the earlier period were forcings due natural variables as opposed to CO2.
Finally i´found it. ——————————————– is a person, and hot stuff.
from: Tom Wigley
subject: Re: Simple model as a policy tool
to: “Griggs, Dave”
As you know, our (Sarah Raper, me and Mike Hulme) MAGICC model does all
of
the things you want in a user-friendly shell. Early versions included
CO, NOx, VOCs and individual halocarbons, but the current version has
essentially turned off the user options to tweak these emissions—for
scientifically justifiable reasons.
As I have noted previously, another reason for making such a model more
generally available is to get away from dependence on GWPs. Papers by
myself (GRL 25, 2285-2288, 1998) and myself and Steve Smith (Climatic
Change, in press) have shown how flawed GWPs are when applied to
realistic emissions control issues.
Sarah (with people at the Hadley Ctr.) has been looking carefully at the
performance of MAGICC vis a vis O/AGCMs and it is likely that
improvements will be made over the next few months. Sarah is really the
lead player in MAGICC currently.
As a final point, you may not realize or remember that some of the early
development work on MAGICC was funded by the UK Dept. of the Environment
(at that time, MAGICC was called “STUGE”). Significant funding support
since then has come from the EC, the US Dept. of Energy, and the US
National Science Foundation.
*************************************************************************************’
Welcome to my homepage, and nasumusa.
http://www.youtube.com/user/nasumusa#p/a/u/0/xXBISRHeXUA
https://sites.google.com/site/myteurastaja/home
Can anyone explain what I’m seeing here?
I was playing around putting numbers in randomly and got this page: http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=8753 and wanted to read this one in full:
Shukla/IGES:[“Future of the IPCC”, 2008] It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.
putting the number direct into URL address line takes to a different email, the URL says http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=5131 but the email is 5181 (<< 5180 • 5181 • 5182 >>
date: Fri Aug 7 09:05:16 2009
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: geoeng
to: Tom Wigley , Ben Santer )
putting number into search box brings gives option of back to the original page:
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=7&search=5131&sisea_offset=20
23. README.TXT
…So I would guess that it will not be models or theory, but observation that will provide the answer to the question of how the climate will change in many decades time. Shukla/IGES: [“Future…
Which gives a bit more of the text..
Tried the 2009 email list, not there.
Looked in the 2011 list, not there:
Ah, just found another mention of it on offset=20 link on page 2 (http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=7&search=5131&sisea_offset=10)
– 18. 4579
REDACTEDeREDACTEDeREDACTEDeREDACTEDeREDACTEDeREDACTEDeREDACTEDe+01 1.4205131eREDACTEDeREDACTEDeREDACTEDeREDACTEDeREDACTEDeREDACTEDeREDACTEDe+03…
Clicking on 4579 takes to: http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=4529 and website cannot display the page
And, putting in the original wrong page URL, the 5181 I got instead of the 5131 which still appeared in the address line, I got, << 5230 • 5231 • 5232 >>
cc: Keith Briffa
date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
from: “David M. Ritson”
subject: Re: RCS
to: Tim Osborn
…OK, tried one more time.. putting 5231 direct into address line, I got:
<< 5280 • 5281 • 5282 >>
cc: “REDACTED”
date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 13:05:43 +0100
from: Merylyn McKenzie Hedger
subject: Fwd. re: US views on possible UK cooling- FYI
to: “REDACTED” , “REDACTED” , “REDACTED” , “REDACTED”
..couldn’t resist, tried one more:
<< 5330 • 5331 • 5332 >>
cc: Eystein Jansen , StefanRahmstorf Keith Briffa , Anders Levermann
date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 12:08:15 -0700
from: Jonathan Overpeck
subject: Re: new climate model runs
to: Fortunat Joos
How can I find the 5131 I’m looking for?
(and what’s going on with the URL’s producing different emails?)
This is really weird – why are all the emails coming up with different numbers to that put into the URL?
Just tried one more where the number was mentioned on the page 2 search: No.14 3521 . Clicking on it takes to http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=4529 and website cannot display page
Number 19 – 4639 takes to: http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=4589
but, the actual email really is 4639..
date: Wed Nov 11 16:23:17 1998
from: Keith Briffa
to: REDACTED
>Return-path:
>Envelope-to: REDACTED
>Delivery-date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 03:37:33 +0100
>Original-Received: by
>REDACTED kintra.krasnoyarsk.su (/oo/ Smail3.1.29.1 #29.2)
>REDACTED with Taylor UUCP v1.06 Sat, 17 Oct 98 10:24 KRSK
>PP-warning: Illegal Received field on preceding line
>To: REDACTED
>Organization: Institute of Forest
>From: Eugene Vaganov
>Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 10:09:48 +0400 (MSD)
>From: From
>Lines: 1489
>
>trwcrn.rwm
>Tree-ring widths (TRW) chronology:
>
>REDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTED
>Ident., Trees, Inent. N (trees)
> NoREDACTEDNo.
>REDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTED
>1)REDACTED all living and dead 2209-years chronology
>2)*REDACTED MAY,925,927,928, CHA044
>3)*REDACTED CHA-H1
>4)*REDACTED MAY702
>5)*REDACTED NOV001
>6)*REDACTED CHA-H6
>7)*REDACTED NOV078
etc.
It’s late here, giving up.
Is 5131 something that’s pulling tree ring data together? I tried one more,
Search Results
23 Results found for “5131”
Result pages:1 | 2 | 3
11. 2561
REDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTED5131REDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTED
And got:
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=2511 appearing in the address line, but the actual email numbered:
<< 2560 • 2561 • 2562 >>
date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 14:42:18 -0700
from: Malcolm Hughes
subject: Yakutia reconstruction
to: REDACTED
Keith – please find attached to this message a text file containing
the Yakutia early summer temperature reconstruction, exactly as
shown in Figure 5 of the ‘Holocene’ manuscript. Let me know if
there are any problems, cheers, Malcolm
Professor and Director
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Tried the next:
12. 2673
…INTERVALREDACTEDYEARS MIDYEAR CORREL CORREL CORREL CORRELREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTED 1971.5 .5131REDACTEDREDACTED
And got, this gets weirder, http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=2623 comes up in the address line, but, the email is 2673:
<>
cc: Keith Briffa
date: 7 Apr 1997 17:32:32 -0600
from: Tom Wigley
subject: Data
to: Phil Jones
Dear Phil,
Thanks for your e-mail. You’ll see from my later fax that some of what you
said has been superceded. Your “Crete” and DF’s “Crete” do NOT correlate as
well as I think they should. Running correlation files are attached.
Thanks for telling me that DF’s Crete is actually his Central W Greenland
(CWG). This doesn’t resolve the puzzle, however. Your “Crete” should be made
up of the same cores, so it isn’t strictly Crete at all. Or DID you use the
same cores? Are you just trying to confuse me? (Sucessfully!) In Fisher’s
paper, CWG is made up of A, B, C, D, H, Crete 74 and Milcent (his Table 1,
cross-referenced to his Table 2). Note that this is only 7 cores (not 8 —
???). From the mean/SD Table you sent, it is clear that core 8 is Milcent,
because it is at a much lower elevation than the others (hence less negative
de1O18). What are the other 7? I suspect you may have included data from
core “G” as well as the ones used by DF. The divide must run very close to G
and H. If there is a difference between G and H, then including G could
explain why the PDJ and DF series differ. If the extra core you have used
(whether it is G or not) is long, then this means that, when you have 3 cores
(1176-1621) DF may only have 2. Most big discrepancies in terms of
correlations are earlier than 1621. I hope you can clarify this for me.
On another matter, could you please send me Trausti’s Icelandic temperature
time series, monthly values. Astrid says you have the latest version. I need
it for finalizing some analyses with Astrid’s sea ice record.
I’m copying this to Keith.
Cheers,
Tom
—–
And he’s confused??
OK, putting in 2673 direct into the address line, gives: http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=2673
Hurrah! Um, but the actual email is numbered:
<< 2722 • 2723 • 2724 >>
cc: REDACTED, Jonathan Overpeck , Stefan Rahmstorf , Anders Levermann , Eva Bauer , Eystein Jansen , REDACTED, joos
date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:20:37 -0700
from: Jonathan Overpeck
subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Millennium Simulations
to: Keith Briffa
Many thanks.
>now working on stitching all bits together (thanks Fortunat for your
>text) – and , (other than final refs which are a mess!) the 2000
>year section should come by tomorrow evening my time – still having
>to juggle University and teaching/committee crap) . Keith
>
>
🙂 Hm, that original “ReadMe” 8753 page is very strange indeed..
Good folks, I’m beginning to think my computer is in a different reality…
I’ve just done a quick search to find something on Shukla/IGES:[“Future of the IPCC”, 2008] and got these two pages:
http://grads.iges.org/aboutiges.html
Which gives background: “
And, http://www.masterresource.org/2011/11/gerald-north-on-climate-modeling-revisited-re-climategate-2-0/
Which I thought, good, he’s found the missing email:
So… Putting 1982 into the address line: http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=1982
gives:
Please, someone make sense of this…
Night, night.
OK, one last one. I did a search to see if anyone else was carrying the 1982 reference, got http://icecap.us/
Putting that phrase into the FOIA search box: http://foia2011.org/index.php?search=+%E2%80%9CThere+is+no+individual+model+that+does+well+in+all+of+the+SST+and+water+vapor+tests+we%E2%80%99ve+applied.%E2%80%9D&id=7
gets:Search Results
There were no search results for the search ““There individual model that does well all the SST and water vapor tests we’ve applied.””. Please try using more general terms to get more results.
Putting in 1982 Santer I got:
Search
Use the form above to search the entire database
Search Results
4 Results found for “1982 Santer”
Result pages:1
1. 0331
…21) Fig 1a. What do the y-coordinates of the triangles represent, if anything? El Chichon was in 1982 I think.
2. 0347
…Even though the amplitudes are very different, the 850-300 mb temperature variations for tropics and globe parallel the Nino3 SST variations well, except following volcanic eruptions. In particular…
3. 1982
cc: Phil Jones , carl mears , Karl Taylor , Tom Wigley , Tom Wigley , “Thorne, Peter” , Steven Sherwood , John Lanzante , Melissa Free , Frank Wentz , Steve Klein , Leopold Haimberger , peter gleckler…
4. README.TXT
…We should keep in mind that the climate system is complex, so that it is difficult, if not impossible to define a metric that captures the breath of physical processes relevant to even a narrow area…
Result pages:1
..Clicking on 1982 got me, 1982
<< 1981 • 1982 • 1983 >>
cc: Phil Jones , carl mears , Karl Taylor , Tom Wigley , Tom Wigley , “Thorne, Peter” , Steven Sherwood , John Lanzante , Melissa Free , Frank Wentz , Steve Klein , Leopold Haimberger , peter gleckler
date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:48:26 -0800
from: Ben Santer
subject: Re: [Fwd: sorry to take your time up, but really do need a scrub
to: Dian Seidel
“Dear Dian,
Thanks very much for your email. I agree that the problem of
partitioning a multi-model ensemble into groups that are “more reliable”
and “less reliable” for some specific application is a difficult one.”
BUT, the URL in the address box came up: http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=1932
And there is nothing in the email about Shukla and the IPCC 1998.
Sigh. 1982 in address line still goes to 2032
2032 goes to 2082
2082 goes to 2132 which is blank after this:
<< 2131 • 2132 • 2133 >>
cc: Urs Neu , Mike MacCracken , Martin Hoffert , Karl Taylor , Ken Caldiera , Curt Covey , “Michael E. Mann” , Raymond Bradley , Malcolm Hughes , Phil Jones , Kevin Trenberth , Tom Crowley , Scott Rutherford , Caspar Ammann , Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn , Michael Oppenheimer , Steve Schneider , Gabi Hegerl , Ellen Mosley-Thompson , Eric Steig , REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, J
2132 goes to 2182 – which is one I do recognise, the touting for funders. So how is the URL http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=2132? Which goes to, etc..
The 4. ReadMe on the 1982 Santer takes back to the same, I think, I haven’t checked properly, ReadMe file I found on the first random number I put in – http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=1
where the 1982 also appears, so the other pages I searched have simply put in the Shukla from that page.
“There is no individual model that does well in all of the SST and water vapor tests we’ve applied.”
Putting in a search on the FOIA box for the phrase from 4131: “It is inconceivable that policymakers”
http://foia2011.org/index.php?search=It+is+inconceivable+that+policymakers+&id=7
Gets:
The third Shukla at last! Still the numbers don’t go where you think – http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=6160
<>
From: J Shukla
To: IPCC-Sec
Subject: Future of the IPCC:
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:46:33 -0500
Cc: REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, Rupa Kumar Kolli , REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED
Dear All,
I would like to respond to some of the items in the attached text on
issues etc. in particular to the statement in the section 3.1.1
(sections 3: Drivers of required change in the future).
“There is now greater demand for a higher level of policy relevance in
the work of IPCC, which could provide policymakers a robust scientific
basis for action”.
1. While it is true that a vast majority of the public and the
policymakers have accepted the reality of human influence on climate
change (in fact many of us were arguing for stronger language with a
higher level of confidence at the last meetings of the LAs), how
confident are we about the projected regional climate changes?
I would like to submit that the current climate models have such large
errors in simulating the statistics of regional (climate) that we are
not ready to provide policymakers a robust scientific basis for “action”
at regional scale. I am not referring to mitigation, I am strictly
referring to science based adaptation.
For example, we can not advise the policymakers about re-building the
city of New Orleans – or more generally about the habitability of the
Gulf-Coast – using climate models which have serious deficiencies in
simulating the strength, frequency and tracks of hurricanes.
We will serve society better by enhancing our efforts on improving our
models so that they can simulate the statistics of regional climate
fluctuations; for example: tropical (monsoon depressions, easterly
waves, hurricanes, typhoons, Madden-Julian oscillations) and
extratropical (storms, blocking) systems in the atmosphere; tropical
instability waves, energetic eddies, upwelling zones in the oceans;
floods and droughts on the land; and various manifestations (ENSO,
monsoons, decadal variations, etc.) of the coupled ocean-land-atmosphere
processes.
It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make
billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected
regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and
simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate
variability. Of course, even a hypothetical, perfect model does not
guarantee accurate prediction of the future regional climate, but at the
very least, our suggestion for action will be based on the best possible
science.
It is urgently required that the climate modeling community arrive at a
consensus on the required accuracy of the climate models to meet the
“greater demand for a higher level of policy relevance”.
2. Is “model democracy” a valid scientific method? The “I” in the IPCC
desires that all models submitted by all governments be considered
equally probable. This should be thoroughly discussed, because it may
have serious implications for regional adaptation strategies. AR4 has
shown that model fidelity and model sensitivity are related. The models
used for IPCC assessments should be evaluated using a consensus metric.
3. Does dynamical downscaling for regional climate change provide a
robust scientific basis for action?
Is there a consensus in the climate modeling community on the validity
of regional climate prediction by dynamical downscaling? A large number
of dynamical downscaling efforts are underway worldwide. This is not
necessarily because it is meaningful to do it, but simply because it is
possible to do it. It is not without precedent that quite deficient
climate models are used by large communities simply because it is
convenient to use them. It is self-evident that if a coarse resolution
IPCC model does not correctly capture the large-scale mean and transient
response, a high-resolution regional model, forced by the lateral
boundary conditions from the coarse model, can not improve the response.
Considering the important role of multi-scale interactions and feedbacks
in the climate system, it is essential that the IPCC-class global models
themselves be run at sufficiently high resolution.
Regards,
Shukla
REDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTED
IPCC-Sec wrote:
> Dear LAs & CLAs,
>
> Please find attached a letter and issues related to the future of the
> IPCC.
>
> With kind regards,
>
> Annie
>
> IPCC Secretariat
> WMO
> 7bis, Avenue de la Paix
> P.O. Box 2300
> 1211 Geneva 2
> SWITZERLAND
> Tel:REDACTED/8254/8284
> Fax:REDACTED/8013
> Email: REDACTED
> Website: http://www.ipcc.ch
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
>
>
Found at last!
Though I still haven’t the faintest idea what’s going on here.
These emails exchanged between members of the carbon-cult make delicious reading.
REGARDED is the key:
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=+regarded
Their “hope” is that drastic warming is occurring so they can implement their mitigation scheme. Which boils down to, “Give us total control of the world’s economy.”
Sure thing, Phil, just hold on while I look for the keys … BLAM!
And keyword REDACTED brings us
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1241415427.txt&search=REDACTED
“CLIMATE SCIENCE FRAUD AT ALBANY UNIVERSITY?
——————————————-
The University at Albany is in a difficult position. If the University received such records as part of the supposed misconduct investigation, then they could easily resolve the problem by making them available to the scientific community and to readers. If the University does not have such records then they have been complicit in misconduct and in coverup of misconduct. If the University at Albany does have such records, but such records are not in accordance with the stated methodology of the publications, then the University has more serious difficulties.
“Investigations” of scientific misconduct should themselves align with the usual principles of scientific discourse (open discussion, honesty, transparency of method, public disclosure of evidence, open public analysis and public discussion and reasoning underlying any conclusion). This was not the case at the University at Albany. When you see universities reluctant to investigate things properly, it provides reasonable evidence that they really don’t want to investigate things properly.
— Aubrey Blumsohn, Scientific Misconduct Blog, 2 May 2009″
——————————————-
And so on ——————————————- proceeds bringing us
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=+——————————————-
Thu, 11 Jul 1996 1:07:13 pm
0837094033.txt-> NR4 7TJ
0837094033.txt-> UK
0837094033.txt:> —————————————————————————-
0837094033.txt->
0837094033.txt->
—
Fri, 25 Oct 1996 1:21:41 pm
1953.txt-> NR4 7TJ
1953.txt-> UK
1953.txt:> —————————————————————————-
1953.txt->
1953.txt-
—
Wed, 4 Dec 1996 10:57:11 am
4654.txt-> NR4 7TJ
4654.txt-> UK
4654.txt:> —————————————————————————-
4654.txt->
4654.txt->
—
Wed, 14 May 1997 7:55:49 am
3724.txt-> changes in the mix of frontal and convective precipitation.
3724.txt->
3724.txt:> —————————————————————————-=
3724.txt-> –
3724.txt-> Dr Mike Hulme tel: +44 ???
—
Mon, 7 Jul 1997 11:39:41 am
2803.txt->
2803.txt->
2803.txt:> —————————————————————————–
2803.txt-> Dr Mike Hulme tel: +44 ???
2803.txt-> Climatic Research Unit fax: +44 ???
—
Tue, 4 Nov 1997 6:02:54 pm
4428.txt->
4428.txt->
4428.txt:> —————————————————————————–
4428.txt-> Dr Mike Hulme tel: +44 ???
4428.txt-> Climatic Research Unit fax: +44 ???
—
Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:34:56 pm
4300.txt-> >Cheers,
4300.txt-> >Tom
4300.txt:> —————————————————————————–
4300.txt-> Dr Mike Hulme tel: +44 ???
4300.txt-> Climatic Research Unit fax: +44 ???
—
Mon, 8 Jun 1998 11:57:54 pm
N tiis is second stage of subdirectories:
Thu, 11 Jul 1996 1:07:13 pm
0837094033.txt-> NR4 7TJ
0837094033.txt-> UK
0837094033.txt:> —————————————————————————-
0837094033.txt->
0837094033.txt->
—
Fri, 25 Oct 1996 1:21:41 pm
1953.txt-> NR4 7TJ
1953.txt-> UK
1953.txt:> —————————————————————————-
1953.txt->
1953.txt-
—
Wed, 4 Dec 1996 10:57:11 am
4654.txt-> NR4 7TJ
4654.txt-> UK
4654.txt:> —————————————————————————-
4654.txt->
4654.txt->
AND
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=+——————————————-
Brings as DOS command CD .// DIR
Why do you not see it.
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1241415427.txt&search=REDACTED
And next as DOS command CD/
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=+—————————————————————————-
FOIA File structure seen as DOS file structure.
SUB Directory REDACTED.
CD/ redacted
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=REDACTED
DIR
—
Thu, 9 Oct 2008 6:56:17 am
0058.txt- Ralf
0058.txt-
0058.txt:[[[redacted: reference]]]
0058.txt-
0058.txt- Finally, might I ask that you note and then erase this email. I have found that recent
—
OPEN 0058.txt-
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0058.txt&search=REDACTED
“
date: Thu Oct 9 17:56:17 2008
from: Keith Briffa
subject: Re: Tom Giverin – IN STRICT CONFIDENCE
to: “Toumi, Ralf”
Ralf
[[[redacted: reference]]]
Finally, might I ask that you note and then erase this email. I have found that recent
enquiries under the Freedom of Information Act, or Data Protection Act, can become
considerable time sinks , or the basis of some inconvenient subsequent distractions.
with best wishes
Keith
At 12:38 09/10/2008, you wrote:
Dear Keith,
Tom has applied to do a PhD with me (probably mesoscale modelling). Could you please
give me a reference for him. In particular I would be interested to know if you would
take him in your group (and why you think he is still available; which is good for
me…, but I always worry at this time of year).
Best wishes,
Ralf
Professor Ralf Toumi
Department of Physics
Imperial College
London SW7 2AZ
UK
Rm. H713 (Huxley Building)
Telephone: + 44 (0) ???
Fax: + 44 (0) ???
email: [1]???@imperial.ac.uk
Web: [2]http://www.sp.ph.ic.ac.uk/~rtoumi/
—
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +4 ???-1603-593909
Fax: +4 ???-1603-507784
[3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Open — it is also a filename, + = space key seen on FOIA Grepper.
DIR
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=+–
“### CANNOT PARSE DATE ###
0876437553.txt-Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.
0876437553.txt-
0876437553.txt:I would like to weigh in on two important questions —
0876437553.txt-“
0876437553.txt:I would like to weigh in on two important questions —
0876437553 = UNIX time stamp
Open 0876437553.txt
“From: Joseph Alcamo
To: ???@uea.ac.uk, ???@rivm.nl
Subject: Timing, Distribution of the Statement
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:33 0100
Reply-to: ???@usf.uni-kassel.de
Mike, Rob,
Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.
I would like to weigh in on two important questions —
Distribution for Endorsements —
I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as
possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is
numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500
signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000
without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
different story.
Conclusion — Forget the screening, forget asking
them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those
names!
Timing — I feel strongly that the week of 24 November is too late.
1. We wanted to announce the Statement in the period when there was
a sag in related news, but in the week before Kyoto we should expect
that we will have to crowd out many other articles about climate.
2. If the Statement comes out just a few days before Kyoto I am
afraid that the delegates who we want to influence will not have any
time to pay attention to it. We should give them a few weeks to hear
about it.
3. If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have
it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread
the word about the Statement. On the other hand, it wouldn’t be so
bad to release the Statement in the same week, but on a
diffeent day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from two
very different directions.
Conclusion — I suggest the week of 10 November, or the week of 17
November at the latest.
Mike — I have no organized email list that could begin to compete
with the list you can get from the Dutch. But I am still
willing to send you what I have, if you wish.
Best wishes,
Joe Alcamo
—————————————————-
Prof. Dr. Joseph Alcamo, Director
Center for Environmental Systems Research
University of Kassel
Kurt Wolters Strasse 3
D-34109 Kassel
Germany”
There is still filename —————————————————-
DIR
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=+—————————————————-
Thu, 11 Jul 1996 1:07:13 pm
0837094033.txt-> NR4 7TJ
0837094033.txt-> UK
0837094033.txt:> —————————————————————————-
0837094033.txt->
0837094033.txt->
—
Open
0837094033.txt:> —————————————————————————-
“From: Alan Robock
To: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: your mail
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 10:07:13 -0400 (EDT)
Dear Phil,
It looks like you have found Baitoushan. Vol. 2 lists Kuwae as VEI 6 in
1452 +/- 10 AD. How accurate are your dates? By the way, Chris Newhall
thinks 1600 is the Parker volcano on Mindanao in the Philippines. He
hasn’t published that so far, as I know.
Could you please define “utter prat” for me? Sometimes I think we speak
the same language, and sometimes I’m not so sure.
I’m doing fine. We have a new building with nice new offices. I’m going
to Australia next week with Sherri and Danny, and after the meeting, will
visit Cairns, Adelaide, and New Zealand. I’m looking forward to skiing
on a volcano, if it stops erupting.
Alan
Prof. Alan Robock Phone: (301)???
Department of Meteorology Fax: (301)???
University of Maryland Email: ???@atmos.umd.edu
College Park, MD 20742 http://www.meto.umd.edu/~alan
On Thu, 11 Jul 1996, Phil Jones wrote:
> Alan,
> Thanks for the quick response. We’ll expect something from Melissa
> in the next few weeks. I also hope our copy of the 2cnd edition arrives
> soon. In our maximum latewood density reconstruction from the polar Urals
> to AD 914, the most anomalous summer is AD 1032. A lot of other volcano
> years are there with summers of -3 to -4 sigma such as 1816,1601,1783 and
> 1453 (I think this later one is Kuwae that is being found in the Ice Cores
> in the Antarctic. However 1032 is 6 sigma and it may be the Baitoushan
> event which you say is 1010 +/- 50 years or the Billy Mitchell event.
>
> I hope all’s well with you.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
> PS Britain seems to have found it’s Pat Michaels/Fred Singer/Bob Balling/
> Dick Lindzen. Our population is only 25 % of yours so we only get 1 for
> every 4 you have. His name in case you should come across him is
> Piers Corbyn. He is nowhere near as good as a couple of yours and he’s
> an utter prat but he’s getting a lot of air time at the moment. For his
> day job he teaches physics and astronomy at a University and he predicts
> the weather from solar phenomena. He bets on his predictions months
> ahead for what will happen in Britain. He now believes he knows all
> there is to know about the global warming issue. He’s not all bad as
> he doesn’t have much confidence in nuclear-power safety. Always says
> that at the begining of his interviews to show he’s not all bad !
>
> Cheers Again
>
> Phil
> Dr Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 ???
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 ???
> Norwich Email ???@uea.ac.uk
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> —————————————————————————-
>
>”
This is an example file path, and seems to be endless.
I think that the master file is still in CRU computer systems,
so we have to sort files like I did.
Ilkka.
Michael E. Mann
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=_________________________________________
Tom ?????
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=___________________________-
Dr Trevor J McDougall
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=________________________________________
Dr J P Darch
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=____________________
Mark Rodwell
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=__________________________________
H�kan Grudd ???@natgeo.su.se
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=________________________________________
Ilkka.
Simple model as a policy tool
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0803.txt&search=+—————————————————-