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.
I have nothing to add, I just want to be at the party.
Oh, I have to add something? OK, this is my bit.
Forget “trick”, that’s ambiguous. Concentrate on “hide”. No legitimate academic exercise hides anything.
I’m still waiting on someone to talk about the ostensible subject of this post – “stagnating temperatures”. What the heck is that supposed to mean? Every 5 year period in the last 12 years has a positive rate of rise for global mean land temperature. That’s not a coincidence.
Tricky Dick must be rolling over in his grave!
To restate the importance of Jones’ trick:
The problem is not in calling a cool technique a ‘trick’.
The problem is in using a cool trick to cover up the truth.
Jones used his tech to hide the truth, and to mislead policy makers.
Gavin may be, to his credit, demonstrating that he, unlike his colleagues, has integrity.
Hugh – it’s our job to make sure that doesn’t happen.
Erik,
Who said anything about coincidence?
Even more, why is a 5 year period so important now to you?
Is there some astronomical import to a 5 year parcel of time?
And please do let the folks at Hadley know – they seem very concerned about the flat temps.
I bet people like Curt in this Mann scolding doesn’t like the treatment he got.
M Mann to Curt Covey
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=776
” I find it terribly irresponsible for you to be sending messages like this to Singer and Monckton. You are speaking from ignorance here, and you must further know how your statements are going to be used. You could have sought some feedback from others who would have told you that you are speaking out of your depth on this. By instead simply blurting all of this nonsense out in an email to these sorts charlatans you’ve done some irreversible damage. shame on you for such irresponsible behavior! ”
Mike Mann — Michael E. Mann Associate Professor
HEADS UP REMINDER
That link takes you to a searchable site where you can search the e-mails with any name or phrase.
Hugh,
You pegged it.
The NYT seems to be taking exactly this tactic.
Here they have the ability to do something they have not done in years – actually report the news- and they won’t because it is stolen. Not that the stolen CIA secrets they published about lawful programs, that directly put Americans in harms way gave them any problems.
The good news is that cap-n-tax seems to be dead, which means Copenhagen will only be a Christmas shopping trip.
Michael Mann explaining that scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem” reminds me of a former president of the University of Colorado explaing that at one time “cunt’ was used as a term of endearment.
It would seem that the “warmmongers” who are posting here are the sort of people who, when smacked along side the head with a wet mackerel, would complain that it wasn’t a trout. Dead fish smell alike, and there were significant crimes perpetuated at the CRU, and the criminals haven’t stopped since.
kudos to CHRIS S for including what is probably what is one of the greatest dialogues in moviedom.
a question—- did the temps NOT rise in 1998 ? why did the green worm not follow the temp curve. i’m afraid that i don’t understand what the problem is
I teach a 400-level undergraduate software engineering course in which case-studies of software bugs that cause havoc are used to illustrate various strategies for better software engineering practice. Nowhere in the textbook is there mention of software development for scientific modeling. I am now developing a lecture on that topic using this current information on tricky programming techniques coming out of CRU.
As an added bonus, I will also be integrating a classroom discussion on the ethics of hacking vs. tricking – do you think it is justified or not in this case? – etc., etc. – can’t wait to here the students’ responses.
I uploaded the emails from Hadley CRU to my site. Seems that the others were overloaded.
Here’s the link: http://thelaymanscorner.com/?p=1446
Incidentally, there are also documents.
questioner (20:28:03) :
Rather than resorting to personal attack you maybe like to enlighten me to why exactly Mann shouldn’t be critical of the paper in case he finds something he perhaps disagrees with.
“…Can it be that all this added data, information and knowledge has produced no more wisdom then the ancients had? Or have we fallen into the same trap they did? We think we know, or believe we know, what in fact we do not. Is it that we have failed to see the difference between Mythos and Logos, between fact and fantasy?” (from one of my unpublished essays)
I can not say I am surprised but I am more than sad.
@TerryBixler:
I’m guessing you didn’t see the recent video of Senator Inhofe telling Senator Boxer:
“We won, it’s over, get a life!” (That was BEFORE these files were leaked!)
Sweet! On to Victory!
I’m very pleased to be able to report that the Cleveland local Enviro/Alarmist newspaper writer has just written a piece about his continually getting drowned in Skeptic (and some separate abusive) comments to his articles.
Unfortunately, the Alarmists are entrenched here, too. The piece also concerns a local/national noted environmentalist who has it out for “Deniers”.
This article http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/11/climate_skeptics_meet_james_po.html is a reminder of the importance this CRU Hack can play in addressing the many well established alarmist followers throughout the world, and in our backyards. This guy James Powell has national recognition and
just landed a $100 Mil Stimulus award for a “Green” Oberlin College project and also lectures to kids. He’s done some very good work, it seems, but unfortunately took up the AGW cause with a vengeance, too:
Environment, Real Time News, Science »
Meet James Powell, a geologist who says climate skeptics are being duped
By Michael Scott
November 20, 2009, 5:14AM
“Powell claims the ‘denier movement’ actually began around 1992 — the year in which he said media more often began quoting politicians rather than scientists in their climate coverage. He said that’s when large corporations began to pour money into conservative think tanks — which he calls ‘skeptic tanks.’
Powell said his lecture topic, “Skeptic Tanks: How Global Warming Deniers Dupe America,” forms the foundation of his next book, which has yet to be published.
He also offered a wager to skeptics that the earth is still warming despite a slight downward trend in recent years.
“I’ll bet any of them that five years from now our global temperatures will be higher than they’ve been,” he said. “If that’s not true, then there’s something fundamentally wrong with the science and our understanding of it.”
Obviously, no quarter will be ever be given skeptics/realists. Join in, if you like.
Just found this chestnut:
Friday, November 20, 2009
Briffa on problems with tree-ometers
Alleged CRU Emails – Searchable
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:57:09 +0000
From: Keith Briffa
Subject: Re: Mitrie: Bristlecones
…
…The main one is an ambiguity in the nature and consistency of their sensitivity to
temperature variations.
…The bottom line though is that these trees likely represent a mixed temperature and moisture-supply response that might
vary on longer timescales.
…
This is also related to the “strip bark” problem , as these types of trees will have unpredictable trends as a consequence of aging and depending on the precise nature of each tree’s structure .
…
At this point , it is fair to say that this adjustment was arbitrary and the link between Bristlecone pine growth and CO2 is ,
at the very least, arguable. Note that at least one author (Lisa Gaumlich) has stated that the recent growth of these trees could be temperature driven and not evidence of CO2 fertilisation.
hunter (20:47:29) :
Would the NY Times turn down the Watergate tapes if 1974 were today?
Not even. Politically correct only gets you so far as the smell of scandal in the wind. Journalists these days may be on a veggie diet, but give them a taste of blood, and the wolf comes to the surface.
I’ll give the NY Times a bit of room here to expand coverage. Implications on the face of it says that there are more fish to fry in other high places.
This scandal has exposed the BBC environment and science departments complicity and it will be very interesting to watch the BBC squirm.
The insider trading and dealing in ‘fixed’ data and conclusions and the overly cosy relationship between a state broadcaster and a group of scientists may well have major ramifications for the BBC, do they disown their own reporters now or do the BBC hang on and suffer contamination by association?
It seems that Black/Harrabin/Shukman have some explaining to do, its a question of who will be thrown to the wolves, there is no honour among thieves and it will be interesting to see who disowns who.
From Nov. 21’s New York Times article:
“Some of the correspondence portrays the scientists as feeling under siege by the skeptics’ camp and worried that any stray comment or data glitch could be turned against them.
The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument.”
IOW “Nothing to see here, folks; move along.”
Unfortunately for the Times there’s this Interwebs thingy to let a broad swath of the public see for themselves the chicanery here. The story is on Drudge and Fox News, and Limbaugh’s already referred to it. The media moonbats will have a very hard time ignoring it—even if the NYT pooh-poohs the revelations.
You can bet that Sen Imhofe will be stuffing the emails down Barbara Boxer’s throat.
[i]test[/i] test
[quote]test[/quote] test
Off Topic Here, but I could use a little assistance on this one. Since the start of ClimateGate today, I have been discussing back and forth with my RC-Koolaid drinking father. He is pulling all kinds of straw-men out of his hat. The latest I post here with a question to you all for a little assistance with what he writes. I did my best in my first response to him, but I have limited knowledge of some of the statements he makes. Anyone willing to give a hand here?
Excerpt:
I just watched this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_0-gX7aUKk&feature=player_embedded
Did Mr. Watts really try to have YouTube remove it?
Has Mr. Watts really appeared on Glen Beck’s show?
Was his study of US weather stations really published by the Heartland Institute?
Is it true that the 70 stations given high marks by Mr. Watts still replicate the overall network results?
Have you read this NOAA response to Mr. Watts book?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf