New twist in UEA climate change row
Last updated: 28/01/2010 10:03:00
Norwich’s flagship university was at the centre of a new row today after it emerged it broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny in the climate change row over stolen emails.
The reputation of the University of East Anglia’s world renowned climatic research unit (CRU)was shaken to the core last year after emails posted on the internet from researchers including its director Prof Phil Jones appeared to suggest ways of avoiding freedom of information requests together with a “trick” to explain away an apparent fall in global temperatures.
Police including a team from Scotland yard were called in to investigate amid speculation that the leaks were part of a smear campaign by climate change sceptics to discredit the UEA in the run up the Copenhagen summit last year.
Other theories were that the leaks were the work of a disgruntled insider angry at the way the university was handling FOI requests.
The row has reverberated around the world and it emerged today the Norwich university breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) decided the UEA failed in its duties under the act but said it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too late.
Read the complete story at Norwich Evening News
See the press release and background from ICO previously covered on WUWT here:
CRU inquiry prompts sought after changes in UK law, citing failure of CRU’s FOIA officer
Loophole in UK FOIA law will apparently allow CRU to avoid prosecution
Has anyone else noticed that we do not yet have the “know how” nor “proper tools” to “solve” the riddle of “Weather/Climate”? The press and the public seem to be of a mind that if our great grandparents’ generation could develope the A-Bomb, if our grandparents’ generation could go to the moon, if our parents’ generation could develope cell phones, then –by all means– we should be able to fix anything, do anything, go anywhere, etc. — and still burn our little candles at both ends and run up fantastic debts.
The problems or issues of a generation say much about the way things are (and are not). The knowledge, technology, organization, science, and politics of today are lacking, wanting, needing, is so many ways. And it is not just the issue of weather/climate, we are stumbling along like a dozen billion blind men in so many areas.
But be not down dear reader, we are learning. We may be so like the lowly lemming and many will perish one day off a cliff from our fears and stupidity, but remember even among the lemmings of the world there are some who do not jump and live to think another day.
Life’s a beach; it’s always changing, and always the same.
Graham UK (14:46:06) :.
“I think the tide is turning, but making governments change direction will require a lot more effort.”
BINGO!
As I’ve said before, the political agenda is the “payload.” AGW was merely the booster rocket to launch it into orbit. Once the booster is no longer needed, it is jettisoned as excess baggage. Now that the “payload” has achieved it’s desired trajectory, it will continue on course unless it can be shot down independent of the faux “science” that got it off the ground.
So, yeah, the real work has probably just begun.
Interesting:
It is suggested that while he may be immune to FOIA prosecution, there is a possibilty that Phil “climategate” Jones (Welsh naming convention followed) might be at risk of a ten year jail sentence or fraud.
The suggestion is made here:
http://www.climategate.com/climategate-professor-phil-jones-could-face-ten-years-on-fraud-charges
Now that would give the Norwich (Narrich) papers something to report.
Per JManon
Climategate Professor Phil Jones could face ten years on fraud charges
January 28, 2010 by John O’Sullivan
He cites:
The Fraud Act 2006 ( part one ) – a note, Norman Baird
The problem with the models is that they all suffer from the same delusion, which is that the temperature of the earth changes at all in the long term. They are so caught up in chasing every last watt and where it goes and how it gets there, that they have lost site of that fact that all they are measuring is a temporary change in energy flow.
The earth has several energy inputs including radioactive element decay, radiance from the earth’s inner core, friction from tides, but they are all pretty much steady state and tiny compared to the Sun. So…
The Sun bombards the Earth with about 235 watts per m2 of energy. The Earth radiates EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT BACK TO SPACE. You can change ANY factor you want. Amount of CO2, amount of ice, and print as many reports as you want, the system will balance itself out again and when it is done…. The Sun bombards the Earth with 235 watts per m2, and the Earth radiates EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT BACK TO SPACE.
UNLESS there is a change to the amount of energy going into the system, the system CANNOT change its over all temperature over the long term. The ONLY thing a change inside the system can accomplish is a change to the circulation patters of energy INSIDE the system IN THE SHORT TERM. So, if someone wants to argue that CO2 will make something (anything) on the planet warmer, then it is only a matter of time before the resulting change in energy flow makes something elsee cooler.
The question of HOW LONG it will take those processes to come back to steady state is valid. The question of WHIC things will be warmer and WHICH things will be cooler and by how much is also valid. But the over all temperature of the earth will be governed by the following:
Solar energy in = earth radiance out.
NOTHING ELSE CAN CHANGE THE TEMPERATURE OF THE PLANET EXCEPT TEMPORARILY
I am not an academic, and this has not been peer reviewed. If I WAS an academic and we submitting this for peer review, I would include references to supporting work of others which would include:
Albert Einstein
Isaac Newton
Bernoulli
Bohr
Boltzman
Planck
Pascal
Edison
Joule
Ohm
In fact I don’t have enough time to document the references upon which my statement rests since it goes all the way back to Aristotle. I have more references to dead physicists than all the climate researchers alive. They can twist and turn with all the positive and negative feedback they want, the planet will ALWAYS return to a steady state where:
Sun Radiance In = Earth Radiance Out.
Mosh: (14:46:31)
I caught a Revkin interview on BBC America a couple of days ago. He is still strongly pushing the warmers agenda.
CLIMATEGATE
Anthropogenic Global Warming, history’s biggest scam, Jones could get 10 years for fraud.
John O’Sullivan is a legal advocate and writer who for several years has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain. Visit his website. He offers his services free to the site and is not a site employee. Any opinions he expresses are his own and do not necessarily represent those of the site owner.
He should Know what he is talking about, lets hope so.
http://www.climategate.com/climategate-professor-phil-jones-could-face-ten-years-on-fraud-charges/comment-page-1#comment-2114
davidmhoffer: Yes you are right, at steady state the energy output will equal the energy input.
However, what you are missing is a serious point, the temperature at steady state can vary. For example, a matt black surface in direct sunlight will reach a higher temperature than a reflective white surface, but the energy radiated by the two will be the same once steady-state is achieved.
This is the whole crux of the greenhouse effect, if you don’t understand this you understand nothing. The planet does have a greenhouse effect, it always has, and without it the world would be permanently frozen solid.
yonason (05:10:44) :
Graham UK (14:46:06) :.
UPDATE – And here’s the proof that they no longer need AGW. Damn the icebergs, and full speed ahead!
A commentator on Lucia’s ‘The Blackboard,’ called VG gives a link to legal advocate, John O’Sullivan’s opinions re Phil Jones liability for prosecution under the Fraud Act 2006.The Act creates serious offences of dishonesty and the statute of limitations is 6 years. As long as someone continues covering up unlawful conduct, under the Act, this keeps the offenses “live,” because the act of covering up the crime is itself a crime. O’Sullivan has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in the US and Britain.
Re: yonason (08:07:55)
Aye, but here’s the little detail at the end of that short reuters piece:
“A final emissions reduction target will be submitted, the U.S. said, once the U.S. Congress enacts domestic legislation requiring carbon pollution cuts. But such legislation has an uncertain fate in the Senate.”
A bit understated, don’t you think? At this point, the probability of the US Congress passing any serious legislation (“cap and trade”) is approaching 0. The elections in November should be interesting.
Could folk take a look at what’s already been posted before providing links?
That’s around 6 people now posting up John O’Sullivan’s piece today!
I try to read everything on here but it gets hard when much is repeated
Must be even harder for Anthony and the mods!
Scientists “broke the law.” From Drudge: click
This is the whole crux of the greenhouse effect, if you don’t understand this you understand nothing. The planet does have a greenhouse effect, it always has, and without it the world would be permanently frozen solid.>
Sigh.
Same mistakes over and over and over. First of all, the atmosphere is part of the planet, you can’t separate them. Second the atmosphere doesn’t generate new energy via greenhouse or any other effect, it only moves it around.
Average temperature of a planet with NO atmosphere, and an energy source averaging 235 watts/m2 is about -20 C. The equator would be a lot warmer, and the poles a lot colder.
Average temperature of a planet WITH an atmosphere, and an energy source averaging 235 watts/m2 is about -20 C. The equator would be a lot warmer and the poles a lot cooler.
The difference would be that the temperature gradient from (for sake of argument) bottom of the ocean to top of atmosphere would be different, and currents in the atmosphere would redistribute energy around the planet. So if you want to argue that “greenhouse effect” changes energy concentrations at different points on the planet, and at different altitudes, I’m pretty interested in how that works. If you want to argue that the temperature of the planet as a whole changed, I will refer you back to the physicists referenced in my previous post.
As for your example:
That’s a classic illustration of the exact same mistake. The matt black surface reflects SOME of the sunlight and absorbs the rest. The relfective white surface reflects MOST of the sunlight and absorbs the rest. At steady state, the two DO NOT radiate the same amount of energy. Since one is hotter than the other, BY DEFINITION it is radiating more energy. The TOTAL of reflected + radiated for the two surfaces will be IDENTICAL.
If it isn’t, you have invented free energy and a lot of people will be wanting to talk with you.
CRU funding [sorry, only goes to 2006]: click
davidmhoffer: the white surface will REFLECT energy without prior absorption, the matt black surface absorbs energy before re-radiating it. There is a difference and anyone can try this experiment. All you need is to feel the difference between a black car and a white car parked next to each other on a hot sunny day. If what you say is real, the two surfaces would have the same temperature. But they don’t, and anyone can confirm this by experiment.
Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office:
What we have here is a failure to communicate!
In other words, the research is robust but communication is weak!
http://www.heliogenic.net/2010/01/30/vicky-pope-head-of-climate-change-advice-at-the-met-office-what-we-have-here-is-a-failure-to-communicate/
Chuck near Houston (08:52:10) :
Yes, I hope you are right. Perhaps the AGW booster was uncoupled too soon, which means the political payload is off course. That’s what it does look like, as you observe, but only time will tell. I mean, with geniuses like them, anything is possible.
kzb (09:45:53) :
davidmhoffer: the white surface will REFLECT energy without prior absorption, the matt black surface absorbs energy before re-radiating it. There is a difference and anyone can try this experiment. All you need is to feel the difference between a black car and a white car parked next to each other on a hot sunny day. If what you say is real, the two surfaces would have the same temperature. But they don’t, and anyone can confirm this by experiment.>
omigosh. are you related to inspector thompson’s gazelle? Which part of, and I quote, “since one is hotter than the other…” did you not understand? Reflected energy is not part of temperature. When you put your hand on the black car, it feels hot. The white car not so much. But you can’t “feel” the reflected energy from the car on the palm of your hand. do you know why? BECAUSE THERE ISNT ANY YOUR HAND IS NOW INTBETWEEN THE ENERGY SOURCE AND THE CAR SO THE REFLECTIVE COMPONENT WENT AWAY. Or more accuratley, it is shining on the back of your hand.
yonason (16:57:58) :
Chuck near Houston (08:52:10) :
UPDATE: This just in.
http://www.climategate.com/the-dynamic-duo-james-delingpole-and-alex-jones
James Delingpole makes the case that it doesn’t matter about the loss of AGW; that it’s a minor inconvenience that they will work around, because the pols everywhere want what AGW was designed to elicit. No more AGW? No problem, he says. They will push on. They have tons of money, lots of cooperation at the highest levels of govt., and their foot in the door, legislatively.
We’ve, as he said, wounded the beast, but it is far from dead.
NIGHT OF THE LIVING GREENHOUSE
@davidmhoffer (10:38:05) :
“Average temperature of a planet with NO atmosphere, and an energy source averaging 235 watts/m2 is about -20 C. The equator would be a lot warmer, and the poles a lot colder.”
And night time far cooler still. Just look at the moon, which is just as far from the sun as the earth.
day side temp = +107 deg C.
night side temp = -153 deg C.
The night side of a planet with an atmosphere cools more slowly, while it’s day side is NOT warmed, but COOLED.
Robert W. Woods falsified greenhouse in 1909, but it’s risen and votes for AGW.
davidmhoffer:
This is from the post that I relied to first:
<>
I read this as, since the energy hitting the planet is constant, the temperature of the planet must also be constant over the long term.
I chose an imperfect analogy, that of the black and white surfaces, to show that two bodies in the same irradiance field do not necessarily have the same temperature (this is what your post implied).
It’s an imperfect analogy for a planet with an atmosphere, it’s not quite the same mechanism. But I think the CO2-warming hypothesis is quite reasonable as a hypothesis.
If we have two otherwise indentical planets, planet-1 the atmosphere is transparent to electromagnetic radiation across the spectrum, and planet-2 the atmosphere absorbs infra-red, planet-2 will be warmer. This is because some of the visible light heats the planet surface which re-radiates the energy in IR. The atmosphere of planet-2 absorbs this and reaches a higher equilibrium temperature than that of planet-1.
I don’t think this basic hypothesis is in serious dispute. It’s all the other things built onto this that are in dispute.
The Independent in Britain is now reporting that Sir David King is claiming the release of the Climategate e-mail and data files was done by a highly sophisticated computer hacking operation by a foreign intelligence agency.
It appears to be very important to Sir David King, Phil Jones, and others to distract public attention away from the possibility or probability that the files were aggregated by Phil Jones and/or others to obstruct the pending FOIA requests and released by someone in CRU who refused to allow them to violate the FOIA laws and subsequent investigations with complete impunity. King’s claim the release was deliberately timed by a foreign intelligence agency has already been debunked as a farce by Steve McIntyre, who noted the releaseof the files occurred the day after the FOIA request was dishonored by Phil Jones and CRU. Since the date when the FOIA request was dishonored was under the control of Phil Jones and CRU, the timing of the file release was in effect controlled by Phil Jones and CRU, and not by some fantasy or real hacker at a fantasy or real foreign intelligence agency. Sir David Jones appears to owe the public a retraction of at least some of his statement/s and an apology for the obvious errors.
kzb (05:23:05) :
“I chose an imperfect analogy…” Translation: “I was wrong.”
kzb is also wrong when he says: “I think the CO2-warming hypothesis is quite reasonable as a hypothesis.” Whether the hypothesis sounded reasonable originally, we have learned a lot since then — and the CO2=CAGW hypothesis has been repeatedly falsified. CO2 can not cause catastrophic global warming.
Over time the climate sensitivity to CO2 has been constantly ratcheted down, even by the IPCC, to the point where the effect of CO2 is so insignificant that it can be completely disregarded. It is simply a non-problem.
And by all indications, at 0.5 – 1 the current sensitivity number is still too high, even though anything under 1.0 makes the effect of CO2 insignificant. That’s why as CO2 steadily rises [95%+ due to entirely non-human causes], the planet’s temperature has been flat to declining.
The entire AGW scare is based specifically on CO2 alarmism. With CO2 discredited as a cause, every other cause raised by the alarmist crowd amounts to nothing more than frantic goal post adjustments.
News Headline: (Telegraph dot co dot UK)
“At last: expert Sir David King expertly reveals true identity of Climategate ‘hackers'”
James Delingpole —
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100024591/at-last-expert-sir-david-king-expertly-reveals-true-identity-of-climategate-hackers/