This is a mirrored post from ClimateAudit.org which is terribly overloaded.
So far one of the most circulated e-mails from the CRU hack is the following from Phil Jones to the original hockey stick authors – Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes.
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
The e-mail is about WMO statement on the status of the global climate in 1999 -report, or more specifically, about its cover image.
Back in December 2004 John Finn asked about “the divergence” in Myth vs. Fact Regarding the “Hockey Stick” -thread of RealClimate.org.
Whatever the reason for the divergence, it would seem to suggest that the practice of grafting the thermometer record onto a proxy temperature record – as I believe was done in the case of the ‘hockey stick’ – is dubious to say the least.
mike’s response speaks for itself.
No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstrution. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.
But there is an interesting twist here: grafting the thermometer onto a reconstruction is not actually the original “Mike’s Nature trick”! Mann did not fully graft the thermometer on a reconstruction, but he stopped the smoothed series in their end years. The trick is more sophisticated, and was uncovered by UC over here. (Note: Try not to click this link now, CA is overloaded. Can’t even get to it myself to mirror it. -A)
When smoothing these time series, the Team had a problem: actual reconstructions “diverge” from the instrumental series in the last part of 20th century. For instance, in the original hockey stick (ending 1980) the last 30-40 years of data points slightly downwards. In order to smooth those time series one needs to “pad” the series beyond the end time, and no matter what method one uses, this leads to a smoothed graph pointing downwards in the end whereas the smoothed instrumental series is pointing upwards — a divergence. So Mann’s solution was to use the instrumental record for padding, which changes the smoothed series to point upwards as clearly seen in UC’s figure (violet original, green without “Mike’s Nature trick”).
TGIF-magazine has already asked Jones about the e-mail, and he denied misleading anyone but did remember grafting.
“No, that’s completely wrong. In the sense that they’re talking about two different things here. They’re talking about the instrumental data which is unaltered – but they’re talking about proxy data going further back in time, a thousand years, and it’s just about how you add on the last few years, because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and ice cores, and they don’t always have the last few years. So one way is to add on the instrumental data for the last few years.”
Jones told TGIF he had no idea what me meant by using the words “hide the decline”.
“That was an email from ten years ago. Can you remember the exact context of what you wrote ten years ago?”
Maybe it helps Dr. Jones’s recollection of the exact context, if he inspects UC’s figure carefully. We here at CA are more than pleased to be able to help such nice persons in these matters.
Sponsored IT training links:
Learn all that you need to pass 220-701 exam. Complete your certification in days using 70-642 dumps and 220-702 study guide.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So Mann’s solution was to use the instrumental record for padding, which changes the smoothed series to point upwards as clearly seen in UC’s figure (violet original, green without “Mike’s Nature trick”).
So… the thermometers are lying?
Shurley knot,
No, to him, the trees were lying. He needed a surrogate because the trees didn’t cooperate. He used poor judgement, cherry picked from another data base, used whatever data he could find to support his conclusion, he lied. Its your choice. But its OK, he was on a mission to save the planet.
If a few cases, the thermometers actually were lying. The temperatures at the Tucson Airport were measured for a few years with sensors that were later shown to be biased to high temperatures. This explained why so many record high temperatures were recorded during the time those sensors were used. Note that the data has not been removed from the record, despite the fact that everybody acknowledges the problem.
In more cases there are local micro-climate and Urban Heat Island effects that affect the temperature readings. This web site has links to the weather station site surveys at Surfacestations trying to determine how bad the micro-climate effects are. My personal favorite was the official weather station surrounded by 23 window air conditioners, but there are also ones near barbeque grills and on tarmac and occasionally in the exhaust of commercial airliners.
The AGW advocates have been arguing for years that these effects either are negligible or have been properly corrected, with Phil Jones one of the strongest voices on the irrelevance of the UHI effect. Note that some of the emails are from Jones, acknowledging that one of his papers on UHI is affected by fraud by his coauthor.
CRU has also hidden the algorithms it uses to take temperature histories from weather stations and generates its gridded temperature anomaly data series. There is no way to know how the temperature data has been adjusted, manipulated, or mangled before it confessed.
The Register’s take on this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/20/cru_climate_hack/
“It does not bode well for a good conference at Copenhagen.”
Let them crack open a Carlsberg and bawl in their beer.
Here’s a great quote from the latest NYT article:
“‘This is not a smoking gun, this is a mushroom cloud,’ said Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist …”
By the way, here is a suggested name for this scandal:
FOIAphobia Jones and the Meltdown Mann Hoax
It may be too long, but it could be box office gold.
You people are morons beyond your own wildest dreams. Luckily, the public and the media will ignore your bizarre claims and they don’t care, either. The first I heard of this illegal hacking you have done was on the RealClimate website. They aren’t hiding anything.
You guys are jokes. You don’t get the science because you don’t understand science, you’re all on the payroll of Exxon and BP.
Do your other hobbies include Ouiji boards and bank robberies?
Reply: I’m actually known for kicking puppies, only dating space aliens, and taking coats of the homeless sleeping in streets in winter. ~ ctm
On further review, the narrative of the letter does not fit the post’s surmise. I remember Mann, and RC running to this excuse for the “divergence” problem, but they don not do so now.
Mike’s ‘tricks’ are several, and smoothing functions are covered in Intermediate Statistics, the usual opening course for Math junkies, if not scientists.
Copy the original emails http://www.megaupload.com/?d=75J4XO4T Send link viral.
PUT THEM IN JAIL NOW! Felony after Felony. This is not fake emails. You could not FAKE that much data. PERIOD.
Hold them accountable pass the link.
Well, my comment has been in “moderation” for over twelve hours (Granted he is terribly overloaded) at RC.(http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/comment-page-6/#comments) It was this:
[Begin original Comment]
[Response: Sure it can. TSI + volcanoes. – gavin]
On #280, what I meant is that something that “would” (but did not) happen cannot be measured. Is it your assertion that any warming not explained by natural drivers is automatically anthropogenic and there is no unexplained drivers? In other words is everything left over filed under “man caused” until further explained? I ask this because when unexpected cooling is observed, albeit not prolonged yet, It seems like it is never even considered that anthropogenic warming is overestimated, just that the cooling is unexplained.
It seems like an all out effort to preserve the estimated AGW. Bias is the concern.
Excerpt from [1255558867.txt]
At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the
recent
lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to
look at
the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic
trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second
is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the
observed data.
Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The
second
method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.
These sums complement Kevin’s energy work.
Kevin says … “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack
of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”. I
do not
agree with this.
I know you are very busy. Thank you for all the time you have taken.
[End of Comment]
I didn’t even add this exchange from file #1255553034.txt:
Here is Mann commenting on the unexpected cooling (after wondering why this “new” BBC reporter was even reporting the cooling. See file 1255558867.txt) :
[excerpt]
Michael Mann wrote:
thanks Tom,
I’ve taken the liberty of attaching a figure that Gavin put
together the other day (its an update from a similar figure he
prepared for an earlier RealClimate post. see:
http://www.realclimate.org/ind…..pulation/). It is indeed worth a thousand words, and drives home Tom’s point below. We’re planning on doing a post on this shortly, but would be nice to see the Sep. HadCRU numbers first,
I did
[End excerpt]
Then Tom takes a look:
[Begin excerpt]
Mike,
The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical
runs with PCM look as though they match observations — but the
match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low
climate sensitivity — compensating errors. In my (perhaps too
harsh)
view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model
results by individual authors and by IPCC. This is why I still use
results from MAGICC to compare with observed temperatures. At least
here I can assess how sensitive matches are to sensitivity and
forcing assumptions/uncertainties.
Tom.
[End excerpt]
Of course Mann, the ringleader, comes back:
[Begin excerpt]
Hi Tom,
thanks for the comments. well, ok. but this is the full CMIP3
ensemble, so at least the plot is sampling the range of choices
regarding if and how indirect effects are represented, what the cloud
radiative feedback & sensitivity is, etc. across the modeling
community. I’m not saying that these things necessarily cancel out
(after all, there is an interesting and perhaps somewhat disturbing
compensation between indirect aerosol forcing and sensitivity across
the CMIP3 models that defies the assumption of independence), but if
showing the full spread from CMIP3 is deceptive, its hard to imagine
what sort of comparison wouldn’t be deceptive (your point re MAGICC
notwithstanding),
perhaps Gavin has some further comments on this (it is his plot after
all),
mike
[End excerpt]
Finally Gavin chimes in:
[Begin excerpt]
Tom, with respect to the difference between the models and the data, the
fundamental issue on short time scales is the magnitude of the internal
variability. Using the full CMIP3 ensemble at least has multiple
individual realisations of that internal variability and so is much more
suited to a comparison with a short period of observations. MAGICC is
great at the longer time scale, but its neglect of unforced variability
does not make it useful for these kinds of comparison.
The kind of things we are hearing “no model showed a cooling”, the “data
is outside the range of the models” need to be addressed directly.
Gavin
[End excerpt]
They fail to see that you can’t just remove observed data, and draw on different comparisons to mask the models lack of ability to account for various natural drivers.
Are these more “Tricks”? I agree with Tom on the final reply:
[Begin excerpt]
Gavin,
I just think that you need to be up front with uncertainties
and the possibility of compensating errors.
Tom.
[End excerpt]
Shelly T. (04:39:02) :
You people are morons beyond your own wildest dreams. Luckily, the public and the media will ignore your bizarre claims and they don’t care, either. The first I heard of this illegal hacking you have done was on the RealClimate website. They aren’t hiding anything.
You guys are jokes. You don’t get the science because you don’t understand science, you’re all on the payroll of Exxon and BP.
Do your other hobbies include Ouiji boards and bank robberies?
Reply: I’m actually known for kicking puppies, only dating space aliens, and taking coats of the homeless sleeping in streets in winter. ~ ctm”
The alarmist site linked to the poster’s name states in the “about” section:
“There is zero tolerance on this site for those people and their lies, misinformation, and attempted obstruction of the truth that the public needs.”
This is a particularly nasty troll, but likely just a hit and run.
Is this where the “trick” is added in to the climate model? I’m used to simpler programming code!!!
;
trv=0 ; selects tree-ring-variable: 0=MXD 1=TRW 2=MXD-TRW
case trv of
0: fnadd=’mxd’
1: fnadd=’trw’
2: fnadd=’mxd-trw’
endcase
titadd=strupcase(fnadd)
;
; Get chronology locations
;
print,’Reading ‘+titadd+’ data’
if trv eq 2 then begin
restore,filename=’../alltrw.idlsave’
trw=mxd
restore,filename=’../allmxd.idlsave’
mxd=mxd-trw
endif else begin
restore,filename=’../all’+fnadd+’.idlsave’
; nchron,idno,idname,location,country,tree,yrstart,yrend,statlat,statlon,$
; mxd,fraction,timey,nyr
endelse
;
; Now read in the 1961-90 monthly means of precip and temperature
;
print,’Reading precipitation baseline’
restore,’/cru/u2/f055/data/obs/grid/surface/precip_new_19611990.idlsave’
; g,nmon,ltm5
pre6190=ltm5
print,’Reading temperature baseline’
restore,’/cru/u2/f055/data/obs/grid/surface/lat_new_19611990.idlsave’
; g,nmon,ltm5
lat6190=ltm5
;
; Now read in the land precipitation dataset.
; Although there is some missing data in Mark New’s precip anomalies, all
; MXD boxes have sufficient data, so do not have to use surrounding boxes.
;
print,’Reading precipitation data’
ncid=ncdf_open
<Theres more in the file, found; FOI2009.zip\FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\datastore\examplets.pro
So much to try to understand!!
There has been a lot of speculation on the name of this scandal. Many want to call it “something-gate.” It is much too big to get that tired old suffix. Besides, it has a catchy name.
FOIA.ZIP
@Ron Cram (15:57:05) :
I know the “hide the decline” email is getting lots of notice (and it is noteworthy), but I am even more interested in the “delete the emails” instructions given. This looks to be evidence of conspiracy to obstruct. Where are the lawyers among us?
Agree… & AGW-FOIA.ZIP
Also,
This should all be Public Domain – public funded – no state secrets – etc. – we need Big Government to push this up to the top of the stack…
Gavin, Tim, Mike and the boyz have not told us where they hid the LIA or MWP… those two facts alone trash all else IMO… ( not to mention ICE AGES and subsequent warming )
Anthony – I think some are new to the WUWT site and may not be aware of the Viking Farms on Greenland – Also proxy data has its limits – ICE-CORES have CO2 migration issues which negate their validity – as does the tremendous variation of sampling, categorizing and documentation of the tree-rings data. All AGW is very shaky at best.
At least we can now see the entire house of cards collapsing – we need to hustle back into the US Supreme court to get CO2 declared plant food again –
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n6995/extref/METHODS/AlgorithmDescription.txt
“Prior to analysis, small gaps in proxy series during the latter part of the
calibration period (between 1972 and 1980) were filled by Mann et al (1998).”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif
Just saying, Mike’s Nature Trick may be important. That paper was published in ’98, email in ’99.
But 1972-1980 don’t look cold.
http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
Of course, in the middle of the 70s, there was a significant concern about falling temps. Now why is that? There is only a difference of about 0.1C between 1940 and 1980 on my neat little chart.
Science is not a religion, unless your pimping science as your own personal whore. The whole thing is disgusting. Perpertrating a fraud on the human race as to purposely cause goverments to enslave and punitivley punish innocent untold millions upon millions people on this planet whose only crime was to be born breathing. These men are the best that Evil has to offer,For they have done wrong to one and all for reasons that they belive are justified by their religion that is but self evident to them such that being self righteous dictates. The Eco-Hitlers of our time.
There isn’t a very good reason to hide the recent global decline in temp. In fact a motive for hiding it is very unlikely to come from a scientist studying climate change. The global rise is looked at over several centuries and is not effected by little blips, it still shows a steady and persistent rise over the long time frame. There are several periods that show temp declining, they are on much shorter time frames and don’t change the long term rise being observed.
Get a life.
Now, wait a second… the “Nature Trick” looks perfectly reasonable to me.
If you have archaeologic/dendrologic data spanning a thousand years, but you have very precise temperature measurements over the last few decades, why not use the data? The ancient data is used over the time period we don’t have carefully measured data, while thermometer-recorded data is used over the period in which it was recorded. Simple.
The only “decline” I see is that shown where the ancient data fizzles out. Of course I would use my more precise and accurate data at that point! Only an idiot would use uncertain/inaccurate data at that point (I would describe my exact methods and reasons in the description and text).
Nikabok – It is scientifically invalid to append a data set to another data set if the 2 sets are not consistent. The fact that there was divergence between the data sets implies that the instrument data invalidated the archaeological/dendrological data set. Continuing to use the first data set is therefore invalid. Cherry picking results from the two data sets is scientifically fraudulent.
Holy Moly.
Thank again to Fox News (that media that isn’t a real news company per our leader) for airing this report or I would have never new about it. Just like the Acorn scandel.
The swines, no valid peer review and the make out like is nothing, their rabid follows just put their fingers in their ears and go la la la.
I wonder what legal action will result from the hacking and subsequent circulation of the documents and emails? The revelations from them don’t seem particularly *wow* to me.
Early on, Geo wrote that he typed in “tips and tricks” and got 12 million plus responses. DUH. “Tips” completely skews the context. The hacked Email mention of “trick” says nothing about “tips and tricks.” It says “Mike’s Nature TRICK… to HIDE the DECLINE”. When you search for “tips and tricks” you’re going to get a lot of information about video game solutions etc. You may has well have tossed in “tips and tricks for retards who are in denial.”