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.
Haha, if Anthony had a quote of the week, this would be it.
From: Stefan Rahmstorf To: Keith Briffa Subject: comments on Briffa, last millennium Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:15:25 +0100 Cc: Jonathan Overpeck , Eystein Jansen
Dear Keith,
you’ve done a great job on the touchy subject of the last millennium, which is central to our whole chapter. My comments to that are threefold: (1) If you could shorten the text somewhat, it could become more powerful (2) Some small edits & comments are in the attached doc (3) I propose some improvements to the figures as follows. – Fig 1a the land temps seem to go off plot, temperature scale needs to be extended – we need a break between panels a and the rest, since it’s a different time scale on the x axis – Fig 1c also has one curve going off the top – Panels 1b-d might run the time axis up to 2010 or so, else the important rise at the end is hidden in the tick-marks and less obvious than it should be – the legends need to say what the baseline period (zero line of y-axis) is (hard to find this in the axis label) – this baseline should be the same for all curves, i.e. 1961-1990. Fig 2d says 1901-1960 – it’s not ideal to have a different one, as compared to Fig 1. Also, is it true? Surely the Storch curve is not shown relative to this baseline, it’s way above it. Aligning it like this could lead to the dangerous misunderstanding that Storch suggests a much warmer medieval time compared to everyone else, which of course is not the case.
I hope this helps.
Cheers, Stefan
BBC Removes all comments to Black’s blog:
“Update 2309: Because comments were posted quoting excerpts apparently from the hacked Climate Research Unit e-mails, and because there are potential legal issues connected with publishing this material, we have temporarily removed all comments until we can ensure that watertight oversight is in place.”
Time for those of us in the UK to seek an FOI request for that e-mail?
From: Stefan Rahmstorf To: David Rind Subject: Re: 6.5.8 revisions Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:20:47 +0100 Cc: Tim Osborn , Jonathan Overpeck , Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen , FortunatJoos
Hi David,
thanks for the detailed response. I’ll try to be brief.
On the orbital forcing you write:
The point here is that climate can be forced by other factors than simply a global,
annual average radiation change, which is the metric now being used.
I think we all agree on this point. My concern is only about how to present it in the
section. I think that giving a climate sensitivity wrt. global mean orbital forcing is
confusing to the uninitiated, e.g. your statement in the section:
This high climate sensitivity (2�C/ Wm^-2) is occurring in an atmospheric model
(ECHAM-1) whose sensitivity to doubled CO[2] is about 0.6�C/Wm^-2.
I really think we should not give a number like 2�C/ Wm^-2 as “climate sensitivity” to
global-mean orbital forcing and contrast it to that to doubled CO2. It gives out the
message to people that climate sensitivity is all over the place and ill defined. That’s
not the case. Climate sensitivity is a well-defined concept for a globally uniform forcing
like CO2 forcing, but nobody expects any clear relation between the global mean part of
orbital forcing and the climate response.
Jones: You want answers?
McIntyre:I think I’m entitled.
Jones: You want answers?!
McIntyre:I want the truth!
Jones: You can’t handle the truth!
McIntyre:Did you order the code changed?
Jones: I did the job I had to do.
McIntyre:Did you order the code changed?!
Jones: You’re God damn right I did!
Still a few good men. Thankfully.
The leak will only help if it is widely reported. If the MSM refuses to report the leak, the general uninformed population will never hear about it and will still follow Gore.
@Ron Cram
Ron a good observation “hide the decline” allows debate.
The deletion of emails another aspect which of course stinks of conspiracy.
But lets deal with morality. If someone has died no normal person would take a perverse pleasure in their death would they?
But these people did and this suggests they have no moral base.
I saw mention of the leak on foxnews website and quickly looked on WWUT, but for people who refuse to look at Fox, they may never hear about the leak. We need to tell one and all.
Paul Husdon’s BBC blog is still open and there’ve been some relevant posts on it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/hatfield-gets-green-light-from.shtml
Where are the warmers hiding? The TWO Community Climate forum is a hotbed for them at the moment I think.
BBC is wading in now with loads more warmist cr*p. Looks like they’re calling everyone into the office!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8371597.stm
Jeremy (14:21:51) “Dr. Jones et Al. it is time to do the honorable thing when caught red handed as a cheats and a liars. PLEASE RESIGN before you are all FIRED.”
A tenured professor getting fired? Perhaps you are overlooking what allows them to lie.
The knives are out for the BBC politically, especially in other, non-public service media outlets. I’m not surprised they’re being ultra-cautious on this. I wouldn’t read anything into it other than that.
Over thousand comments on a single publication within 14 hours time!
WUWT is a breaking records!
LittyKitter (14:59:43) :
Is it me or have the BBC just taken all comments off Richard Blacks site?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/11/copenhagen_countdown_17_days.html
Richard Black Comments:-
Update 2309: Because comments were posted quoting excerpts apparently from the hacked Climate Research Unit e-mails, and because there are potential legal issues connected with publishing this material, we have temporarily removed all comments until we can ensure that watertight oversight is in place.
Its amazing how the crazies over at reddit.com enviro forums are not even batting an eye at this.. Are they THAT closed? How can this not even get them to question it? Blatant statements are being ignored or downplayed.
I too was surprised at the comments being allowed on RC.
I was even more impressed at how manfully (no pun intended) Gavin was defending his POV.
Love him or loathe him, he’s a born fighter.
I hope that he doesn’t end up single handedly manning the barricades!
Posted this to RC. Wonder if it gets through and what the answer might be?
Gavin, is there ANYTHING in the emails that indicates untoward behaviour or other unscientific behavior on the part of email authors or recipients…or is it all just one big misunderstanding on the part of those who are criticising? Is there anything?
Great work but until a national newspaper or tv and radio station covers it we are still unable to get the message home.
At least in America the Wall Street Journal has done a good piece on Steve McIntyre…. and 200 people demonstrated outside of a recent Al Gore lecture.
Cracks showing perhaps but it has got to become mainstream news.
“Nothing much else to say except:
1. Think I’ve managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA
requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit.
2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said
they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are
threads on it about Australian sites.
3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning)
about the availability of the responses to reviewer’s at the various
stages of the AR4 drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on
paleo.
Cheers
Phil”
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=802
Related to my earlier post, for example no mention of the leak on the home page of CNN.com, MSNBC.com, ABCnews . Again we need to send out emails to everyone we know.
Fame at last.
Tree ring controversy….
] *On Behalf Of *David
Schnare
*Sent:* Sunday, October 04, 2009 10:49 AM
*Cc:* Alan White; geoengineering@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
*Subject:* [geo] Re: CCNet: A Scientific Scandal Unfolds
Gene:
I’ve been following this issue closely and this is what I take
away from it:
1) Tree ring-based temperature reconstructions are fraught with
so much uncertainty, they have no value whatever. It is
impossible to tease out the relative contributions of rainfall,
nutrients, temperature and access to sunlight. Indeed a single
tree can, and apparently has, skewed the entire 20th century
temperature reconstruction.
2) The IPCC peer review process is fundamentally flawed if a
lead author is able to both disregard and ignore criticisms of
his own work, where that work is the critical core of the
chapter. It not only destroys the credibility of the core
assumptions and data, it destroys the credibility of the larger
work – in this case, the IPCC summary report and the underlying
technical reports. It also destroys the utility and credibility
of the modeling efforts that use assumptions on the relationship
of CO2 to temperature that are based on Britta’s work, which is,
of course, the majority of such analyses.
As Corcoran points out, “the IPCC has depended on 1) computer
models, 2) data collection, 3) long-range temperature
forecasting and 4) communication. None of these efforts are
sitting on firm ground.”
Nonetheless, and even if the UNEP thinks it appropriate to rely
on Wikipedia as their scientific source of choice, greenhouse
gases may (at an ever diminishing probability) cause a
significant increase in global temperature. Thus, research,
including field trials, on the leading geoengineering techniques
are appropriate as a backstop in case our children find out that
the current alarmism is justified.
David Schnare
Richard Mc Gough (14:32:08) provided this excellent searchable link http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/search.php
I typed in Watts and came up with the above.
This is the CC equivalent of the fall of the Berlin Wall, can’t think of anything else to talk about at the moment., I am driving my wife crazy !!!
I think it’s pretty obvious by now that CA is under a DoS attack, which tells me that somebody somewhere is utterly terrified of what MacIntyre is going to do with all this material…or even certain parts of it.
I once knew someone who had worked at the Mack Truck Testing Lab. He had
collected funny and stupid things that had been put in reports. My favorite, and the one that is apropos to this controversy is: “Through statistical manipulation, we arrived at the desired result.”
Jeremy (14:21:51), I believe in the UK “doing the honorable thing” means shooting oneself. In Japan it would be seppuku.