CEI’s Chris Horner asks WUWT readers for some help in locating “Phil Jones’s Aspirations”
So, I’m leafing through another 1,500 pages of emails dumped on me by NASA in an apparent attempt to forestall litigation we informed them was coming this week after the clock tolls on their requirement to comply with requests under the Freedom of Information Act (it’s complicated, so here’s the gist of what two of the requests were about; the third one is about NASA using taxpayer resources to produce content for and manage the third-party “global warming” activist operation RealClimate, which you will read about soon).
Near the end of the first of three large folders of documents I see a particular email thread between James Hansen and Phil Jones.
In Jones’ final reply at the top of the thread, there is some mildly interesting discussion of e.g., China temperatures, and then, after a little nattering about how those ocean temperature observations seem too cool for their tastes and so clearly the observations are wrong, Jones writes to Hansen, “As I think you might has said earlier, we aren’t doing a great job in measuring surface T[emperatures] in a consistent manner”.
But, before this and in the same email, Jones admits to Hansen, “I hope the Met Office prediction for 2015 in last week’s Science are correct!” [hyperlink to Met Office press release added]
He is referring to the prediction by the Met Office, in Science magazine’s August 10, 2007 issue, of accelerating “global warming” leading to record temperatures, beginning 2009 or so. The article (by Doug Smith et al.) is behind a paywall, but it declared an understanding, courtesy of a new modeling technique, that we will see at least five years claiming “warmest ever” by the year 2015.
It is possible that someone in Jones’ position hopes for record temperatures simply because their enterprise thrives on the global warming panic. But I was reminded of an earlier email of Jones’s, which I thought had made the rounds pre-CRUGate, asserting in response to a challenge that, yes, he does wish/want/need disruptive anthropogenic climate change to be true/real (the precise word choice eludes me), because it will cause society to straighten up and fly right in terms of its policies and lifestyles.
I cannot locate this email, either by web-searching or on the various East Anglia email sites. So, I appeal to readers: who can recall and produce a copy of that earlier Jones email?
I ask because together they do rather support the argument that the global warming alarmists, even if donning the vestments of “science”, remain ideological advocates. They want their Man-as-agent-of-doom theory to be true, they need it to be true. Such evidence would certainly color their claims, and the exposed fudging, lying, withholding and the rest of the nasty little bag of tricks that collectively amount to pushing an agenda. With a line of reasoning that goes do what I want or people die! In the name of “science”.
The irony here is that the same issue of Science published a letter [subscription required] by Robert Gitzen of the University of Missouri, titled “The Dangers of Advocacy in Science”.
Regardless, any help in tracking down this earlier Phil Jones email is appreciated.
supercritical (08:43:41) :
I heard that the moon has a tidal effect on land, with ‘earth-tide’ heights of around 300mm. So can anyone say what the sun’s earth-tidal effect is?
It is just a little bit less. You can calculate the difference for your area by looking up the tidal range for the largest high tide (when sun and moon pull together) compared with the lowest high-tide (when the sun and moon pull at right-angles).
That effect is what makes the spring and neap tides.
pat (18:47:25) :” john m –
why would the east anglia version be truncated like that? any ideas?”
I noticed a different email on the east anglia emails website [sorry, did not note which email] where the juiciest bits were edited out . From that point, I used my own copy of FOI2009.zip.
‘Syzygy’ is the term for the lining up of the sun, the moon and the earth, which means that the gravitation ‘pull’ of both the sun and the moon are ‘in phase’.
The greatest storm on the North Jersey Coast that I have ever witnessed occurred in December of 1992, at a moment of syzygy. The fabled (well, among a certain set of men) Ocean Grove fishing pier was brought down, the Borough of Sea Bright, set precariously between the bay and the sea was evacuated, and winds were clocked in gusts to Cat 2 hurricane force.
I was on the last train to make it over the bridge from Perth to South Amboy. Waves from Raritan were lapping the roadbed. Pleasure boats from Morgan marina were marooned on the Garden State Parkway.
Syzygy surely contributed to the effects of the storm surge.
Needless to say, this weather weenie was in ecstacy!
CRS, Dr.P.H. (21:25:49) :
Some theorize that this is a long-term effect of planetary gravitational forces, discussed in this CERN speech:
This is an interesting topic. And I wish it would be discussed at this blog more. But apparently there is a certain person who posts and comments here that doesn’t like this topic. So Anthony Watts has said it shouldn’t be discussd here.
I think Lucy Skywalker discusses it at her blog.
There still appears to be no search engine that is capable of searching the leaked emails perfectly. The Neutralpedia search is best except for special characters.
The search functions in http://www.eastangliaemails.com and http://www.climate-gate.org do not find exact phrases that are split between two lines. For example search for the phrase “role in Australias continuing drought” that is contained in email 1120593115.txt and it will not be found at those two sites but is found OK at Neutralpedia here:
http://neutralpedia.com/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=role+in+Australias+continuing+drought&fulltext=Search
However, special characters are not handled very well.
The phrase “very very naïve” is found OK at.climate-gate.org but is not found at Neutralpedia because of the special character in “naïve”. It’s not found at eastangliaemails either because the rest of the email is trucated from the point of the special character “ï” ( hope it’s visible here!).
I went looking and found one that did both of those searches successfully.
It may be worth a look:
o3find – Full Text Search Utility for StarOffice and OpenOffice.org
I installed from the link that read:
Download o3find WinGUI (Self-installer, 144 KB)
I just tried several searches, and it seemed to work fine.
Good luck.
Feet2theFire (16:47:16)
Your search utilty presumably searches files that are already on your computer, which is fine for those of us who have the leaked emails already. The search sites I mentioned have their own copy of the emails.
I can use the Windows Find option to search my copy of the emails for any single word (or phrase within a single line). To search all of the emails takes around one second. Just the thing for searching for all the rude words you can think of!
Of course a fully-featured search would be better.
@ur momisugly jaymam (18:21:47) –
Actually, Windows Search does not do a good job searching the email on my PC. The .txt files are broken up (at least in my unzipped files) with pieces of lines and 3 to 5 extraneous spaces, which screw up my searches. It does not find many text strings.
This O3Find tool seems to have that beat.
As to it only looking on my PC, sorry, that is what I thought you were doing. The files only take up 198 Mb on my hard drive (it is compressed), so I assumed you had them. My bad.
Well, I can say that if you download them, this text search tool is better than Windows Search (so far).
Feet2theFire (18:40:58)
Well of course I have downloaded the emails. May I suggest that anybody who has not done that and read many of them is unqualified to discuss Climategate at all anywhere.
I am agreeing with you that for searching your own machine almost anything is better than the Windows Find (as it’s called with my version of Windows). For single words it’s OK and very quick.
The original request and other posters have referred to web-based searches e.g. “I cannot locate this email, either by web-searching or on the various East Anglia email sites.”
Jaymam –
I can’t disagree with you about non-downloaders not being qualified to comment anywhere, any time.
So, is that what this post is about? I had assumed Chris Horner had them, and that threw me off, evidently. Why is he, who has posting rights here, not searching his own downloaded emails? (Rhetorical question, no need to answer…)
Yes, it is Windows Find. Actually these emails are the first files I’ve knowingly failed to find text in files, using Find.
The O3Find seems a good one, and is freeware. It seems a bit slow, but that isn’t bad, if it is good. I’ll use it a while.
Thanks for the feedback.
Regarding the Solar/Earthquake connection question. There is a site, Jupitersdance, which proposes such a thing …
‘…..Research shows that large earthquakes occur at low sunspot frequencies. A sample of global earthquakes greater than Magnitude 6 for the period 1973-2005 (USGS) compared to smoothed monthly sunspot figures (SIDC) show that 71% of earthquake energy is released and 59% of earthquake events occur at lower than average sunspot activity….’
hmmmmmmmmmmm. I’ll wait for comments….if any one comes back to this thread.
Leif Svalgaard,
Someone has raised the specter of planetary gravitational interaction with solar activity again, and I’ve been waiting for that opportunity to discuss General Relativity effects again, a time when you were present.
I got the impression that GR quadrature and spin coupling effects weren’t registering because you will still looking for a “torque arm”. Torques are expected in GR. I thought this paper might show what standard accepted fare they are and how they are calculated:
“Gravity Gradient Gyroscope Drifts in the NASA Relativity Mission/Gravity Probe B Experiment” Kasdin and Gauthier
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/sci_papers/papers/KasdinJ_1996_58.pdf
There are gravitational torques even in Newtonian gravity that are responsible for tidal locking of bodies. All the quadrature and spin coupling papers indicate that GR adds something when extended bodies are involved. I want to share an insight for another source of GR related torque. One big change in GR over Newtonian gravitation is that gravity travels at the speed of light (or slower do we really know?). One implication of this for say Jupiter interacting with an extended body like the Sun which is over 4.5 light-seconds in diameter is that the gravitational acceleration vectors for different parts of the Sun will be “seeing” Jupiter at different points in time and thus different positions in its orbit. These may seem small, but they are torques. With frame dragging and other effects GR is more complicated than this, but recall that previously we had discussed how GR quadrature effects, like tides, were proportional to the inverse of the distance cubed.
Links to our previous discussions:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/04/nasa-goddard-study-suggests-solar-variation-plays-a-role-in-our-current-climate/#comment-141628
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/17/solar-cycle-24-lack-of-sunspots-caused-by-sluggish-solar-jet-stream-returning-soon/#comment-146221
On an orthogonal note, when looking at the papers which cited J. Shirley’s spin orbit coupling paper (Newtonian only), I found this paper, which argues that an iron or neutron supernova core is inside the Sun and gravitational changes in its position may be responsible for solar cycles and climate change:
“Fingerprints of a Local Supernova” Oliver Manuel and Hilton Ratcliffe
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0905/0905.0684.pdf
I had never heard this theory before. They tie a lot of mainly nuclear facts together. Has this theory gained any acceptance?
regards
africangenesis (09:11:23) :
These may seem small, but they are torques. With frame dragging and other effects GR is more complicated than this, but recall that previously we had discussed how GR quadrature effects, like tides, were proportional to the inverse of the distance cubed.
The third power is what kills all these theories. The tidal torques are definitively there [nobody doubts that] but are just too small to have any effect [incl. GR]
“Fingerprints of a Local Supernova” Oliver Manuel
I had never heard this theory before. They tie a lot of mainly nuclear facts together. Has this theory gained any acceptance?
No, for many reasons. The predicted neutrino flux is wrong [we have compelling observations now of what the real flux is], the internal structure is wrong [we have compelling helioseismological data for that], the luminosity of the Sun depends on the opacity of the matter in the interior and that is compatible with the ‘hydrogen ball’, if the sun had condensed on a supernova remnant then one would assume that all stars would and that would require many more supernovae than the observed rate justifies and also raises the question of how the star that went supernova formed [on another supernova? leading to infinite regression], etc, etc.
Now, Oliver and company maintain that NASA and every other agency and all astronomers are involved in a giant conspiracy to keep the truth [Oliver’s ideas] from coming out. The truth is, of course, that nobody cares about his theory and therefore has no reason for covering anything up.
africangenesis (09:11:23) :
“Fingerprints of a Local Supernova”
Purveyors of pseudo-science always sprinkle in some half-truths that mask the nonsense a bit. And there is little doubt that a ‘nearby’ supernova was involved in the formation of the solar system. Supernova expel material at great speed which tends to compact the interstellar medium. Such compaction serves as genesis for gravitational collapse: gravity tends to concentrate an excess of mass even more and the blob attracts more stuff, etc. Aluminium 26 [half-life ~1 million years] is produced in supernova explosions and decay to Magnesium 26 which is found in meteorites, so that is another clue that a supernova was involved, but a supernova that exploded many light-years away. So, there probably WAS a ‘local’ supernova, but not THAT local that is was co-located with the Sun.
Leif Svalgaard (10:11:46) ,
I don’t think the torques from GR can be dismissed so easily. With GR there is a “lever arm” with extended bodies, spin and quadrature. Shirley’s assumption that “free fall” meant that torque wasn’t possible was Newtonian, in this case wrong, not just lacking in precision. There are multiple examples in physics of phase locking between oscillators achieved with interactions orders of magnitude smaller than thought possibly relevant. Phase locking and pumping of a characteristic oscillation of the solar dynamo if naturally close to Jupiter’s orbital period can’t be dismissed without performing the calculations and solar dynamo models probably aren’t accurate enough yet. I suspect a phase locking hypothesis can be tested with a Newtonian gravity modified by propagation at the speed of light rather than a full GR.
Of course, once the required interaction is so small the field is open to magnetism and other hypotheses. I don’t think we need to settle on coincidence as an explanation yet.
africangenesis (15:59:32) :
I don’t think the torques from GR can be dismissed so easily. With GR there is a “lever arm” with extended bodies, spin and quadrature.
The Sun is rotating [some 175 times in a ‘Jupiter Year] so the torque is very evenly distributed. A parcel in the Sun feels Jupiter’s gravity twice every 13 days, as the Bay of Fundy feels that of the Moon every 12.4 hours. The Sun is in free fall in both Newtonian and General Relativity. The issues are the ‘tidal effects’ and they are minuscule in both Newtonian and General Relativity, because GR is very close to NR at the distance of Jupiter. People have looked into that. If you think otherwise, spare me doing it and enlighten us about the magnitude.
africangenesis (15:59:32) :
Of course, once the required interaction is so small the field is open to magnetism and other hypotheses
The biggest problem [apart from the smallness of the forces] with the non-magnetic mechanisms is that they fail to account for a first-order effect, namely the change of magnetic polarity between cycles. This was the main reason astronomers dumped the planetary explanation [which held sway for about 70 years, 1855-1925] as soon as the Hale polarity laws were discovered. Here is a good historical exposition: http://www.leif.org/research/Rise-and-Fall.pdf
””””’Leif Svalgaard (18:51:09) :
africangenesis (15:59:32) :
Of course, once the required interaction is so small the field is open to magnetism and other hypotheses
The biggest problem [apart from the smallness of the forces] with the non-magnetic mechanisms is that they fail to account for a first-order effect, namely the change of magnetic polarity between cycles. This was the main reason astronomers dumped the planetary explanation [which held sway for about 70 years, 1855-1925] as soon as the Hale polarity laws were discovered. Here is a good historical exposition: http://www.leif.org/research/Rise-and-Fall.pdf ””””’
Leif,
Scanned through the ‘Rise-and-Fall’.
Leif,
Let’s try this again : ), I was attacked by keyboard gremlins.
””””’Leif Svalgaard (18:51:09) :
africangenesis (15:59:32) :
Of course, once the required interaction is so small the field is open to magnetism and other hypotheses
The biggest problem [apart from the smallness of the forces] with the non-magnetic mechanisms is that they fail to account for a first-order effect, namely the change of magnetic polarity between cycles. This was the main reason astronomers dumped the planetary explanation [which held sway for about 70 years, 1855-1925] as soon as the Hale polarity laws were discovered. Here is a good historical exposition: http://www.leif.org/research/Rise-and-Fall.pdf ””””’
Leif,
Scanned through the ‘Rise-and-Fall’.
I am starting to have an historical understanding of theories of planetary influence on the sun. The theories had major play time in the 1800s, before Hale & company work on solar magnetism made the planetary theory no longer feasible.
I can imagine, even today, that not all the planetary theorists have given up on explaining the sun’s behavior.
Could the current solar system barycentric theorists (that occasionally comment here on WUWT) be an historical continuation with a modern variation of the 19th century planetary theorists? That is, instead of saying the planets cause sunspot cycles as they did in the 19th century, the planetary theorists are perhaps now maintaining in the 21st century that planets cause the magnetic cycle/variation which in turn causes the sunspot cycle.
It is conceivable to me that until the sun is totally understood, there will be the possibility of the planetary theorists being able to hold open the door to the possibility of participating in the discussion of the sun.
The history of science is as interesting as the history of philosophy and cannot be entirely independent of it. I can see that understanding scientific history, gives some perspective of where people are coming from. Perhaps it explains the barycentrists is some aspects. They could harbor the of another Rise.
Anthony, sorry to bring up the “b” word, but I just did it in context of the 18th century planetary theorists on sunspot cycle.
John
John Whitman (23:15:01) :
Scanned through the ‘Rise-and-Fall’.
And? It makes good reading too 🙂
Thanks Leif, thanks Africangenesis. Interesting stuff. Oliver got booted off WUWT permanently(so far) so you won’t be hearing any rebuts from him here.
Is Oliver alone in his theory?
Where are we on this issue with the Sun/earthquake?
Question for Leif: Any reservations about the LHC and the energy with which they will create ‘conditions close to the Bigbang’. Thx Johnnny
johnnythelowery (06:44:58) :
Is Oliver alone in his theory?
No, there are lots of nuts on the internet that find his stuff interesting. No scientist I know gives it any credence.
Where are we on this issue with the Sun/earthquake?
Nowhere.
Question for Leif: Any reservations about the LHC and the energy with which they will create ‘conditions close to the Bigbang’.
No, while the LHC will create the most energetic collisions ever seen on Earth, cosmic rays at these and even higher energies have been bombarding our and other planets for billions of years without mishap.
John Whitman (23:57:55) :
Could the current solar system barycentric theorists (that occasionally comment here on WUWT) be an historical continuation with a modern variation of the 19th century planetary theorists?
At least the 19th century scientists knew their physics. The modern variants do not. And the sticking point is still the same: no explanation for the polarity change. To save the ‘theory’, some modern versions argue that the usual dynamo creates the magnetic/sunspot cycle and the planets just modulate the amplitude of that, violating Occam’s razor of not introducing extraneous theories where fewer will do. Sometimes a correlation can be so good and so strong that it is compelling enough to override ‘scientific’ objections [e.g. that the Sun is responsible for geomagnetic activity], but the problem here is that the correlations are not good [in spite of unsupported claims to the contrary]. There are enough posts on this already so it is doubtful that new light can be shed on this.
Thanks Leif, thanks Africangenesis. Interesting stuff. [snip]
Where are we on this issue with the Sun/earthquake?
Question for Leif: Any reservations about the LHC and the energy with which they will create ‘conditions close to the Bigbang’.
I looked at the results P.A. Semi documented in “Orbital resonance and Solar cycles” and he didn’t find any missing angular momentum either. So I thought I would compare the angular momentum of Jupiter with a calculation based on 2% of the Sun’s mass at a radius of 2 light-seconds and a change in velocity of 5 meters per second. The ratio to Jupiter’s angular momentum was 6.2E-06.
The question becomes how accurately do we know the masses, distances and velocities in the Solar system? Do we have measurements covering the extremes so we can rule out a change in angular momentum might have been transferred to the Sun? Could a mass smaller than 2% of the Sun be significant, if the dynamic processes concentrated any transferred angular momentum in say the jet streams? If we have accuracies in the range of E-06 and aren’t missing angular momentum things aren’t looking good for these theories, but they can’t be ruled out yet. If we are already at E-09 or E-08 in the observations for calculating angular momentum then the theories aren’t tenable.
It is hard to hypothesis an internal mechanism for longer term periodic solar variation, there must be external drivers, mustn’t there?