I was working on another project related to the CRU emails and came across this email from Dr.Phil Jones. I was stunned, not only because he was dissing another dataset, but mostly because that dissing hit many of the points about problems with the NASA GISS products we’ve covered here on WUWT and at Climate Audit.
Here’s the email with my highlights added. Email addresses have been partially redacted.
The original email can be seen at this link:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1042&filename=1254850534.txt
Here’s the thing, we’ve seen the problems with CRU’s temperature series in the code already. If Dr. Jones is aware of those problems, and he thinks GISS is inferior, well then, wow, just how bad is GISS?
I thought this statement was quite telling:
Their non-use of a base period (GISS using something very odd and NCDC first differences) means they can use
very short series that we can’t (as they don’t have base periods) but with short series it is impossible to assess for homogeneity.
One thing about GISS that has bothered a lot of people – the base period they use for calculating temperature anomaly is for 1951-1980. See it listed here on the GISTEMP page. No other data sets use that period. Critics (including myself) have said that by using that period, it makes this graph’s trend look steeper than it would if the current 30 year period was used.
In the past couple of years we’ve seen two significant errors with NASA GISS that had to be corrected after they were discovered through the work done here at at WUWT and Climate audit. Public errors have not been found in CRU products during that time, because the data an code have been withheld.
To the credit of NASA GISS, they have been more transparent than CRU on data, stations used, and code.
Here are some of the relevant posts on WUWT where we address issues found with the NASA GISS temperature products:
How bad is the global temperature data?
And now, the most influential station in the GISS record is …
NASA GISS: adjustments galore, rewriting U.S. climate history
Absence makes the chart grow fonder
A comphrehensive comparison of GISS and UAH global Temperature data
Getting crabby – another missing NASA GISS station found, thanks to a TV show
More on NOAA’s FUBAR Honolulu “record highs” ASOS debacle, PLUS finding a long lost GISS station
Weather Station Data: raw or adjusted?
GISS Divergence with satellite temperatures since the start of 2003
Divergence Between GISS and UAH since 1980
GISS’s Gavin Schmidt credits WUWT community with spotting the error
GISS, NOAA, GHCN and the odd Russian temperature anomaly – “It’s all pipes!”
Corrected NASA GISTEMP data has been posted
A new view on GISS data, per Lucia
The Accidental Tourist (aka The GISS World Tour)
Rewriting History, Time and Time Again
Why Does NASA GISS Oppose Satellites?
How not to measure temperature, part 52: Another UFA sighted in Arizona
How not to measure temperature, part 51.
NASA’s Hansen Frees the Code !
Does Hansen’s Error “Matter”? – guest post by Steve McIntyre
1998 no longer the hottest year on record in USA
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In other news, a Real Climate shill posts on Slashdot to explain that:
(a page at Real Climate)
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2061
Seems like Mann has decided that Jones will be the skapegoat. See deletion of emails comment LOL
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/11/30/psu_investigates_climategate.aspx
Impressiom there’s no way these guys will survive this (weeks I’d say at most)
a bit off topic, but belongs with the fallout after the CRU-gate:
A department of environmental sciences mandates OpenAccess policy:
http://digital-scholarship.org/digitalkoans/2009/11/29/university-of-guelphs-school-of-environmental-sciences-adopts-open-access-policy/
An aside really but I can’t help being amused by the number of emails from this individual that contain the message that “I’ll be away at….” Fill in the blanks yourself. What’s the collective noun for profesors? Answer “An absence”.
Leader of British National Party a climate sceptic http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231876/BNP-leader-Nick-Griffin-threatens-expose-dodgy-science-represents-Europe-climate-change-summit.html
Monday, November 30, 2009
London Times
Scientists at the University of East Anglia have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The Drudge Report has been all over this and now has a link to this London Times report.
Climate change data dumped
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
So the CRU can no longer recreate their own data from the original source if we are to believe them. How unfortunate!
In all of this scandal Teflon Jim Hansen appears to be getting off scot-free. If the deep solar minimum continues as Livingston and Penn are suggesting and global temperatures continue to drop, Phil Jones will be left holding the bag and Jim Hansen will walk.
Michael Ronayne
Spot the contradiction
Phil Jones, Oct 6th 2009: “GISS is inferior to CRUTEM3”
Phile Jones, Nov 24th 2009: “Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for Nasa (GISS)…..”
An inferior product GISS tallies with CRUTEM3 ?????
So we can conclude that scientists working independently can come up with the same inferior products.
Not exactly a convincing arguement!
A relatively small number of individuals from varying disciplines got together in an immature area of science and misbehaved. They allowed imagination and personal ambition to supplant scientific judgement and they did not allow proper use of the scientific method to rein back their imaginings.
Due to their influential positions and the lack of a widely understood whole climate mechanism they were able to persuade many others in powerful positions that they had come across a devastating truth.
For a while it all looked plausible as the rise in CO2 levels coincidentally correlated with changing global temperatures. The facts and the science were never properly questioned because they controlled the peer review process and the immaturity of the science meant that adequately informed peer review was unavailable anyway.
They treated the laboriously collated raw data as a personal possession to be manipulated and discarded as suited their purposes.
Then it gradually became clear that temperatures were not changing as expected, that their models started to go awry immediately after every projection commenced and other explanations (especially oceanic) for the observed warming became more plausible. Furthermore the all important correlation evaporated.
The cost (both financial and in terms of a pointless loss of freedom) of the solutions they proposed became clearer in a world already facing a financial meltdown for other reasons.
The uselessness of the proposed measures in the face of natural forcings also became more apparent with it becoming obvious that without substantial technical advances relating to alternative energy sources the targets were wholly unrealistic.
The entire concept is now in the process of falling apart and it is becoming clear that to have proceeded as proposed would have hindered and not helped the undeniably necessary moves towards proper long term solutions for resource depletion, overpopulation and genuine pollution.
The loss of confidence in science generally has become profound and is unlikely to be overcome on a timescale of less than decades.
The longer the culprits struggle the longer it will take and the worse the consequences will be.
Julian in Wales (01:34:25) :
I do hope then that those noble & respected members of the RS include that wonderful letter from the then President of the RS, to the Lords of the Admiralty about his concern, & interest, of the new found warmth in the Arctic Circle, dated 1817 I believe. Sorry don’t have a link to it!
I reckon it’s “in an odd way, cheering news” that despite John Daly’s sudden passing, he continues to be a thorn in the side of the AGW Religionists including the likes of Phil Jones at CRU. I remember John from the pre-www days of FIDOnet and the GTNET_SCIENCE “echo” (forum) where although we butted heads on the topics of origins and uniformitarianism, I agreed with him when it came to the topic of AGW … though that phrase wasn’t the fashion back then.
Today I went through some of my archives from those heady days of FIDOnet and found a number of publicly sent messages to/from John. For those interested they can be viewed a couple of posts back in the following forum found here: http://forum.behindbigbrother.com/showthread.php?t=41233
Of more interest may be his 1990 document he distributed via FIDOnet. It is called “Update on Greenhouse Effect” and I’ve uploaded it to google docs. If you take a copy, please honour his copyright requests given at the beginning.
The link is: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dhbbzft5_0g8w26ncd
The ascii graphs unfortunately don’t translate well to non fixed width fonts, but unlike with what Phil and the rest of the CRU crew produced, I doubt if there is any “tricking” or “hiding of declines” going on. 🙂
regarDS
Anthony, OT but
I could not believe when I read this in the Brazilian media:
Google translation
http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/ciencia/fe3011200905.htm
Cold atypical surprised scientists in Antarctica
Summer sea ice has accumulated and snow in the most tepid of the continent, which in 2009 had the coldest winter in 18 years
Researchers even claim that the area where Brazil is science goes through cooling, in other areas, the thaw continues
Edward Knapp / Folha Imagem
Comandante Ferraz, semicoberta snow
EDUARDO GERAQUE
A SPECIAL ENVOY ANTARCTICA
Sunday was snow in the bay of the Admiralty. The strong wind made waves form at sea. The view from the windows of the Brazilian station Comandante Ferraz is blocked by the accumulation of more than two meters of snow. At the bottom of the bay, much of the sea remains frozen.
The experts look at the calendar and are surprised. This time, summer in the southern hemisphere, it is common that there is more snow in front of the station.
Who gives support for the printing of the Antarctic Research and Heber Steps, himself a veteran of King George Island, home to the Brazilian Antarctic station.
Coach INPE (National Institute for Space Research) lives in a separate module of the base, on top of a nearby mountain. There, he records everything on the weather conditions throughout the area.
The graphs that arise in computer proving a harsh winter. The month of August, for example, had at least 25.6 C and mean negative -9 C. Just over 1991, when the station controlled by the space agency, operating for 23 years, scored -28.5 C and average minimum temperature of -11.3 C.
In recent days, in November, the temperature was around 0C, with wind chill of-13C at times.
Less important than the record year of thermometers, with Steps, is the cycle of winters. “Before they were less frequently [every four years or so], now had a 2007 and another in 2009,” he says.
For events such as registered on the Brazilian station, is that other researchers Antarctic Brazil do not like the term global warming.
They prefer to talk about climate variations. At least where is station Comandante Ferraz and in the northwest of the Antarctic Peninsula, the more correct term is for “global cooling”, even scientists unable to explain why it is occurring.
In accordance with the steps, not just the Brazilian data pointing toward a more cold. The accumulation of snow is felt by other nearby stations, such as the Chilean President Frei.
In the east and south, however, the ice loss continues, and strong rhythm, show other studies in the region.
“They may be two sides of the same coin,” considering the technical INPE.
Outside, research groups at work in this Antarctic summer feel in their daily work the weather changed. Whether because of the absence of the animals that they usually consider this time of year, either by technical problems that the snow often causes.
In the case of birds this time of year, scientists expect to find nests of skuas and terns, for example, in the nearby beaches. But the early days of research are being played at a slow pace. Because of the large accumulation of ice, say, the animals have not built their nests.
The problem for the group of fish is technical. The ice still holds the boat’s research station in Brazil. Without it, the shift is difficult.
Within Ferraz, the snow out of hours also makes sequels. The two lakes of water supply of the complex are frozen. Bath only once a day, preferably fast. Machine, for instance, is prohibited by the station.
Does anybody even know WHAT was thrown away?
Alan the Brit
Amogst other places the 1817 Royal Socety quote is within my article carried here-this is the full version
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/#more-8688
Tonyb
Brazilian station in artartica peninsula.
Obviously, we can’t say which series is better, Hadcrut, GISS or the NCDC.
As far as we can tell, they are all exaggerated and don’t reflect the actual temperature history. It might not be a significant amount but it could also be the majority of the increase. Its just that nobody can tell right now.
There is a danger that we are placing too much emphasis on possible mischievous massaging in regard to trend exaggeration of late C20th temperature rise, without emphasising the more important fundamental weaknesses in CO2 theory itself and the inherent attitude of academic arrogance resulting in the disgraceful suppression of alternate natural processes theory, primarily solar linked.
I would urge everyone who has not viewed the Svensmark documentary, for example, which in my view superbly documents these frustrations, and in my opinion it is absolutely tragic that viewings of this on You tube are so few.
The Svensmark documentary can be found in Youtube by searching for ‘Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming’ and is in 5 parts. Please watch this, it is very powerful in explaining the systemic rot that has infected science.
Michael Ronayne (04:23:08) :
James Hansen has been on both sides of the fence spreading Alarmist FUD since the 70’s. The Dog ate my Hypothesis data.
@Mattb:
You wrote, “But you guys already know CRU is corrupt, so you can take from this that GISS is better. Or is Phil’s opinion suitable when it suits you?”
Yes, we know they’re corrupt. And their private emails are truthful – in contrast to their public lies. When Phil Jones says he wants to “hide the decline” he means it, just as he means it when he says the GISS data isn’t very good. So yes, “Phil’s opinion” is suitable when he’s telling the truth in private.
You exhibit the same fallacious “logic” that the global warmists do.
‘The material conditions have corresponding cultural conditions and minds and hearts. ‘
Right on the Marx?
Karl, I mean. Personally, I’ll stick with Groucho.
VG
That radio interview in Australia is devastating for Jones and his fellow emailers. You should all listen to this.
“In Australian terms this is quite huge
#
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2009/2757619.htm
First crack in mainstream, also from an IPCC reviwers as well. “
The goings-on in East Anglia has picked up another, quite appropriate, sobriquet “Data Rape”.
http://www.nationalreview.com/
The Dog Ate My Tree Rings
Sounds like the term “scientific consensus”, when read in a climate science context, is a bit of an oxymoron…
Anthony,
The dataset produced by the leaked code is CRU TS – this is a high resolution dataset with no adjustments for UHI. It appears to be used for environmental modelling and validation of climate models.
The CRUTEM dataset is a lower resolution dataset has been adjusted for UHI and is used to create the HadCRUT series.
I hope you will update you post to make this distinction clear.