A link to where to download the new FOIA2011.zip file is posted below the fold – This will be a top post for a few days -NEW STORIES APPEAR BELOW THIS ONE -I’ve also reversed the order of the updates to be newest at top for better visibility – Anthony
UPDATE50: 1:15 PM PST 11/30 The genesis of RealClimate.org seems to have been found. Surprisingly, the BBC’s Roger Harrabin seems to have been involved in the genesis meeting.
UPDATE49: 10:00 AM PST 11/30 While not email related, just as Climategate breaks David Suzuki commits an egregious propaganda error second only to the 10:10 video where kids are blown up for not going along with carbon reduction schemes at school. He’s targeting kids and Santa Claus at Christmas – Santa’s home is melting.
UPDATE48: 9:20 AM PST 11/30 Dr. Phil Jones on the “lack of warming” -he may need a backup plan.
UPDATE47: 9AM PST 11/30 Fudge factor collection in the emails, or is climate modeling a social issue?
UPDATE46: A look at UEA/CRU’s email infrastructure and email systems in general suggests that the “deleted” emails to/from Phil Jones and others at CRU probably still exist and can be subject to FOIA.
UPDATE45: 1:30PM PST 11/29 If there was award for clueless timing, this would win it no contest: Penn State to lecture on “climate ethics”
UPDATE44: 9AM PST 11/29 Mike Mann reprises the role of Captain Queeg in The Cain Mutiny when seeing de Freitas being vindicated by the publisher of Climate Research (see the update in the article).
UPDATE43: 8AM PST 11/29 An Excel Spreadsheet with Climategate 1 and 2 emails ordered chronologically should be helpful in determining that supposedly missing”context”
UPDATE42: 7AM PST 11/29 The CRU crew says: “what we really meant was…”
UPDATE41: 4AM PST 11/29 James Padget schools Steve Zwick – Guide to Defending the Indefensible. Some people just can’t handle Climategate.
UPDATE40: 12AM PST 11/29 Penn State has the same “look the other way” problem with Climategate as they did with the Jerry Sandusky scandal.
UPDATE39: It seems “vexatious” is Dr. Phil Jones favorite new feeling word after summer 2009.
UPDATE38: Severinghaus says Mike Mann didn’t give a straight answer regarding why trees don’t work as thermometers after 1950
UPDATE37: Climate sensitivity can’t be quantified with the current data according to NCAR’s Wigley, with paleo data – even less so.
UPDATE36: Dr. Chris de Freitas responds to the ugly attempt by The Team at getting him fired.
UPDATE 35: “Stroppy” Dr Roger Pielke Sr. shows just how much a “old boys network” the peer review process is.
UPDATE34: More internal dissent of the hockey stick. Mann tries to beat down the concern over “hide the decline” while not letting the dissenting scientist know there was a decline.
UPDATE33: Gobsmacking! Rob Wilson proves McIntyre and McKittrick correct in an email to colleagues at CRU, showing that when random noise time series are fed into Mike Mann’s procedure, it makes “hockey sticks”. The confirmation that M&M is right never leaves the walls of CRU.
UPDATE32: 9:30PM PST 11/27 BREAKING – Canada to pull out of Kyoto protocol. Another Climategate fallout ?
UPDATE31: 4:30PM PST 11/27 BOMBSHELL An absolutely disgusting string of communications that shows the tribal attempt at getting an editor of a journal fired on made up issues – all because he allowed a publication that didn’t agree with “the Team”. This is ugly, disturbing, and wrong on every level.
UPDATE30: 9:45 AM PST 11/27 Newsbytes. Major crack in the warming wall at the UK prime minister’s office. BBC in collusion with Climategate scientists.
UPDATE29: 9AM PST 11/27 The saga of the missing station data at CRU and the “pants on fire” defense of it as told by Willis Eschenbach. Dr. Phil Jones is between a rock and a hard place, quite.
UPDATE 28: 1:30PM PST 11/26 An email shows the UNFCCC considers activists an essential tool saying “…organized and deeply committed environmental activism has long been an important part of the UNFCCC process…”
UPDATE27: 7AM PST 11/26 Climategate 2 features prominently in WUWT’s newest feature “Hits and Misses”
UPDATE26: 2:50 PM 11/25 Two separate examples show obstruction and collusion by members of “The Team” to prevent any dissenting science from being properly considered by the NRC in 2007.
UPDATE25: 2PM 11/25 Keith Briffa asks another colleague to delete email to avoid FOIA
UPDATE24: 1:30PM 11/25 New Climategate 1/2 combined search engine here
UPDATE23: 9AM PST 11/25 via bishop-hill, strange infighting:
#4101 – Edward Cook tells Phil Jones that Mike Mann is “serious enemy” and “vindictive”. Mike Mann had criticized his work.
Apparently Mann went “a little crazy” over a paper showing the MWP exists.
Details here
UPDATE22: 11AM PST 11/24 Am unsurprising admission from a BBC environmental reporter to Dr. Phil Jones that they really have no impartiality at all (ho ho) when it comes to climate issues.
UPDATE21: 9:50AM PST 11/24 “FOIA2011″ and Climategate – A Chinese-POTUS connection?
UPDATE20: 9:30AM PST 11/24 World renowned climatologist Phil Jones can’t even plot a temperature trend line in Excel. I’ve offered a solution that WUWT readers can help with.
UPDATE19: 9AM PST 11/24 Gail Combs finds some disturbing connections between the Team and The World Bank
UPDATE18: 1:45PM Scott Mandia, aka “Supermandia” wins the award for the silliest climategate rebuttal, ever. It’s like stupid on steroids.
UPDATE17: 12:55PM PST 11/23 Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. has an excellent piece on “Gatekeeping” related to Trenberth and the Pielke-Landsea hurricane paper and the IPCC. You may recall Landsea resigned from the IPCC over this. Pielke says: “The gatekeeping of the IPCC process is abundantly clear, and the shadowy suggestion that they can find out who the reviewers are from another colleague is a bit unsettling as well.” Trenberth looks particularly bad here.
UPDATE16: 11:30AM PST 11/23 Insider scientist at CRU says our “reaction to Mike Mann’s errors was not particularly honest” – story here
UPDATE15: 7:50AM 11/23 Ric Werme found an email from the late John L. Daly to Mike Mann and the team – it is well worth a read here
UPDATE14: 2:45 AM PST 11/23 Willis Eschenbach offers a guest post here explaining how his FOIA requests went astray. Mr. David Palmer was the Freedom of Information Officer for the CRU at the time. In the newly released emails, he expresses his frustration with the whole procedure.
UPDATE13: 12:05AM 11/23 Craig Stone writes:
I have published a searchable database of the emails at http://foia2011.org
All email addresses and phone numbers are automatically redacted. It’s extremely rudimentary right now, but I’ll be refining the functionality and improving the search capabilities and navigation over the course of the next week.
UPDATE 12: 9:30 PM PST We’ve known for some time that Al Gore made up a bunch of claims in his AIT movie that simply weren’t true. Now this revelation in the new email batch shows that in the case of Kilimanjaro’s disappearing snows, even Phil Jones and Dr. Lonnie Thompson don’t believe global warming is the cause, even though Thompson put out a press release nearly a year ago saying just that. Told ya so. Pants on fire and all that. Anything for “the cause” right?
UPDATE11: 4:45PM PST Kevin Trenberth gets all misty eyed and sing-songy at Christmas here
UPDATE10: 4:30PM PST Some thoughts on cracking the big remaining all.7z file here
UPDATE9: 2:25PM PST Josh weighs in with the first satirical cartoon here
UPDATE8: 140PM PST Mike Mann shows his true colors:
email 1680.txt
date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:03:05 -0400
from: “Michael E. Mann”..
subject: Re: Something not to pass on
to: Phil Jones
Phil,
I would not respond to this. They will misrepresent and take out of context anything you give them. This is a set up. They will certainly publish this, and will ignore any evidence to the contrary that you provide. s They are going after Wei-Chyung because he’s U.S. and there is a higher threshold for establishing libel. Nonetheless, he should
consider filing a defamation lawsuit, perhaps you too.
I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thusfar unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests.Perhaps the same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy.
I believe that the only way to stop these people is by exposing them and discrediting them….
UPDATE7: 1:20 PM PST Phil Jones and Tom Wigley calls another scientist (The former state climatologist of California) a “jerk” for publishing his UHI results.
UPDATE6: 12:08PM PST Here’s an email that collaborates a radio interview I did in Seattle with Thomas Peterson in summer 2007, yes these are 100% real emails, no doubt whatsoever now. More here: Climategate 2.0 – NCDC: “Mr. Watts gave a well reasoned position”
UPDATE 5: 11:00AM PST In a statement, UEA doesn’t deny these emails, but posts about the whitewash investigations of the past, like they matter now.
UPDATE4: 9:45 AM PST I’ve changed the headline from Climategate 2.0 to Climategate 2.0 emails – They’re real and they’re spectacular! with a hat tip to Jerry Seinfeld. The relevance of that headline is particularly interesting in the context of where Dr. James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has his office in NYC.
UPDATE3: 9:25 AM PST – Having read a number of emails, and seeing this quote from Mike Mann in the Guardian:
When asked if they were genuine, he said: “Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all, despite them having been taken out of context. I guess they had very little left to work with, having culled in the first round the emails that could most easily be taken out of context to try to make me look bad.”
I’m going to conclude they are the real deal. I’ve posted a BitTorrent link to the file below. One big difference between Climategate 1 and 2 is that in 1, it took days for the MSM to catch on, now they are on top of it.
UPDATE2: 8:45AM PST The Guardian has a story up by Leo Hickman, and this excerpt suggests they may be the real deal:
Norfolk police have said the new set of emails is “of interest” to their investigation to find the perpetrator of the initial email release who has not yet been identified.
The emails appear to be genuine, but this has yet to be confirmed by the University of East Anglia. One of the emailers, the climate scientist Prof Michael Mann, has confirmed that he believes they are his messages.
UPDATE1: 8:20 AM PST These emails have not been verified yet, and this story was posted by one of my moderating staff while I was asleep. Until such time they are verified, tread lightly because without knowing what is behind the rest of the zip file, for all we know it’s a bunch of recipes and collection of lorem ipsum text files. I’m working to authenticate these now and will report when I know more – Anthony Watts
===============================================================
Early this morning, history repeated itself. FOIA.org has produced an enormous zip file of 5,000 additional emails similar to those released two years ago in November 2009 and coined Climategate. There are almost 1/4 million additional emails locked behind a password, which the organization does not plan on releasing at this time.
The original link was dropped off in the Hurricane Kenneth thread at about 4 AM Eastern. It is still there.
Some initial snippets floating around the blogosphere:
<3373> Bradley: I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year
“reconstruction”.
<3115> Mann: By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year
reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that
reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.
<3940> Mann: They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic
example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted
upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a
bit.
<0810> Mann: I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s
doing, but its not helping the cause
<2440> Jones: I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the
process
<2094> Briffa: UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails] anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC
task.
JeffId has some initial reaction
From the ReadMe file:
/// FOIA 2011 — Background and Context ///
“Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”
“Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”
“One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true.
“Poverty is a death sentence.”
“Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”
Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
hiding the decline.
This archive contains some 5.000 emails picked from keyword searches. A few
remarks and redactions are marked with triple brackets.
The rest, some 220.000, are encrypted for various reasons. We are not planning
to publicly release the passphrase.
We could not read every one, but tried to cover the most relevant topics such
as…
==============================================================
Here’s one about UHI that is convincing:
cc: liqx@cma.xxx
date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:16:37 +0800
from: =?gb2312?B?JUQ1JUM1JUMwJUYyJUMzJUY0IA==?= <limmy@xxx>
subject: Re:Re: thank you
to: p.jones@xxx
Dear Phil,
Again I find that the emails from my CMA mail boxes can not get to you.
From attaches please find the data of 42 urban stations and 42 rural stations (by your
list) and a reference of homogenization of the data. we have tested and adjusted the abrupt
discontinuities of the data during 1951-2001, but the following years (2002-2004) has only
been quality controled and added to the end of the series, but we found the relocation
during these 3 years have minor effects on the whole series in most of the stations.
I partly agree with what Prof. Ren said. and we have done some analysis on the urban heat
island effect in China during past years. The results are differnt with Ren’s. But I think
different methods, data, and selection of the urban and rural stations would be the most
important causes of this. So I think it is high time to give some new studies and graw some
conclusion in this topic. I hope we can make some new achives on this both on global scale
and in China.
Best
Qingxiang
—– Original Message —–
From: “Phil Jones” < p.jones@xxxx >
To: “Rean Guoyoo” < guoyoo@xxxx >
Cc: “%D5%C5%C0%F2%C3%F4” < limmy@xxx>, < liqx@cma.xxx >
Sent: 2007-09-24 16:25:59 +0800
Subject: Re: thank you
Dear Guoyu,
I think I emailed you from America last week. I am away again next week,
but here this week.
I do think that understanding urban influences are important. I will
wait for Dr Li Qingxiang to send some data, but there is no rush, as I am
quite busy the next few weeks.
Best Regards
Phil
At 00:59 20/09/2007, you wrote:
The following message was returned back when I sent via cma site. I send it again via
this site. I also forwarded this message to Dr, Li Qingxiang.
Regards,
Guoyu
Dear Phil,
Thank you for your message of Sept 11, 2007. I have just been back from the US. Sorry
for the delayed response.
I noted the discussion on blog sites. This is indeed a big issue in the studies of
climate change.
In the past years, we did some analyses of the urban warming effect on surface air
temperature trends in China, and we found the effect is pretty big in the areas we
analyzed. This is a little different from the result you obtained in 1990. I think there
might be at least three reasons for the difference: (1) the areas chosen in the analyses
are different; (2) the time periods analyzed are obviously varied, and the aft-1990
period is seeing a more rapid warming in most areas of China; (3) the rural stations
used for the analyses are different, and we used some stations which we think could be
more representative for the baseline change.
We have published a few of papers on this topic in Chinese. Unfortunately, when we sent
our comments to the IPCC AR4, they were mostly rejected.
It is my opinion that we need to re-assess the urbanization effect on surface air
temperature records for at least some regions of the continents. I am glad that you are
going to redo it using the updated dataset. I expect you to obtain the new outcome.
As for the dataset, I believe that Dr. Li Qingxiang could give you a hand. He and his
group conducted a lot work of detection and adjustment of the inhomogeneities in the
past years, and the adjusted and the raw datasets are all stored and managed in his
center. The datasets we used are also from his center.
I’d be happy to discuss some issues with you late, but I would not necessarily be as a
co-author because my contribution would be rather minor.
Best regards,
Guoyu
NCC, Beijing
Shape Yahoo! in your own image. [1]Join our Network Research Panel today!
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 xxxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-
=======================263ÌìÏÂÓÊ£ÐÅÀµÓÊ×Ôרҵ=======================
Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\Detecting and Adjusting Temporal Inhomogeneity in
Chinese Mean Surface Air Temperature Data.pdf” Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\To
Jones.rar”
====================================================================
Here’s a bit torrent link to the FOIA2011.zip file
You’ll need a bit torrent client
BETTER LINK:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ROCGBR37
Documentation Of A Cozy Interaction Between An AMS BAMS Editor And Phil Jones
What is astonishing is that these emails seem to have less to do with manipulating science than the first set did….
And this is proof of something?
Ok.
Interersting.
The Cause = made up dogma, possible bearing no relation to reality
At least labels such as “global warming, climate change, climate disruption”, give the impression of a pretense to objectivity
the politicians go by the information given them from the IPCC – the Gillard Brown Carbon Tax is much like the bloke in old B & W movies wearing a sign that reads “The End Is Nigh” and we look but at the same time know that the ignorance of the dark past has still not left us. Church and State still believes it has total power over us – but the masses are now learning what they are not supposed to know and the light is on – and it’s not powered by windmills but by enlightenment.
@ur momisugly Venkman says:
November 22, 2011 at 11:04 am
2368
“…With the earlier FOI requests re David Holland, I wasted a part of a day deleting
numerous emails and exchanges with almost all the skeptics.”
Nice catch. Now we know why the enquiries never asked Jones if he deleted emails.
The task ahead is to parse the ‘Team’ responses to and enquiry evidence about Climategate 1 emails against the further background now revealed.
In the markets, they say “When the tide goes it it shows who’s been bathing naked”. The Climate tide is now going out (again).
Hello folks
I have published a searchable database of the emails at http://foia2011.org
All email addresses and phone numbers are automatically redacted. It’s extremely rudimentary right now, but I’ll be refining the functionality and improving the search capabilities and navigation over the course of the next week.
Excerpt from #5323
3. After “The Ten” have signed on, we need an enthusiastic
organization to carry out the time-consuming task of collecting as
many signatures of scientists in Europe as possible, so that we can
say “1,865 European scientists, including (the prominent ten) have
signed a Statement that says .. and so forth”. I don’t think that
either you or Rob or I have the time to do this. For the American
statement this job was done by an organization called “Redefining
Progress”. Perhaps for us it could be WWF. What do you think.
Could the statement in the ‘readme.txt’ file be the password?
And they stole his strawberries too!
Danielle Westerbank says:
November 22, 2011 at 10:56 pm
Danielle. You remind me of the story of Louis Armstrong, when he was asked what jazz was, replied: “Lady? If you gotta ask, you just ain’t got it”.
I find one of the emails pertaining to Rob Swart fairly interesting. Seems he is really interesting in getting the correct “spin” on things and cranking up the alarmism. e.g. 4957.txt
Actually, I find many of the emails pertaining to Rob Swart interesting, as he seems to be pretty much completely concerned with spinning things in a political sense. Looks like he is good for “the cause”.
I like the WP comments:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/climategate-20-do-new-emails-undermine-global-warming-science/2011/11/22/gIQArptGmN_blog.html
Or, as MIT climate scientist Kerry Emanuel said in an essay published by the National Association of Scholars, the emails demonstrated scientists being human, frankly discussing the quality of their peers’ work, usually nobly but with the occasional lapse:
… the emails in question were semi-private correspondence among scientists …
Semi-private… LOL
Sounds like semi-pregnant, or semi-dead… or semi-truth.
A physicist says:
November 22, 2011 at 7:51 am
I wonder who this troll really is. If you want open and honest intellectual debate, tell us who you really are and where stands your affiliation.
As for the so-called “Conservative War on Science,” I have to laugh at the observation. I know a lot of engineers and scientists, many of whom have posted artfully on this website (and no, mr. physicist, there has been little – if any – cherry-picking, slogan-shouting, or witch-hunting among them), who are quite legitimately concerned about the state of science in general and climate science in particular, and the fact that there are a number of people in government who seem to want to control not only the process, but the results. The conservative war is not on science itself, simply bad science and bogus science put to political ends. You, on the other hand, seem to have sold out for a mess of porridge.
The claim that conservatives “war” upon science is just another bogus ploy by those who seek to place control of everyday life on the planet in the hands of a relatively few technocrats and bureaucrats, rather than ordinary people. I tire of egos like yourself, mr. physicist, who claim to know better than I how I should live. Enough! Mr. physicist, you are a dunderhead.
Getting paid to officially falsify the records must attract some kind of penalty surely. So which courtroom do we approach? The ABC or The Australian?
>>
Roger Knights says:
November 22, 2011 at 11:43 pm
And they stole his strawberries too!
<<
The mental image this gives me is of Captain Queeg clicking those steel balls in his hand.
Jim
RE: Dave Wendt says: (November 22, 2011 at 9:42 pm)
“What in your understanding is the residence time of a photon of infrared energy emitted from the earth which is absorbed by a molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere? There are number of physicists among the community of commentors here. How about we do a short poll? How many of you guys or your colleagues in the physics community would use “heat trapping” as an analogy of what occurs in the radiative forcing that is supposedly the basis of the CAGW conjecture?”
The following diagram would seem to indicate that CO2 has a relatively minor role in radiative forcing. I see a primary CO2 hole at about 667 kayzers (cycles per centimeter, cm-¹) that occupies about ten percent of the bandwidth and a minor ozone hole at 1111 kayzers, but curiously, no holes due to H2O–the primary greenhouse gas in the lower troposphere.
Comparison of Radiative Forcing for 300 PPM and 600 PPM
Carbon Dioxide Concentrations in the Atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ModtranRadiativeForcingDoubleCO2.png
Yes!
Most of us suspected there were more emails due to the language used in the first release. Our suspicions have been confirmed. Are there still more?
Cue Lord Oxburgh and whitewash team 2.0. ;O)
“Dave Wendt says:
November 22, 2011 at 9:42 pm”
Exactly! This is one question no alarmist I have asked has been able to answer.
There’s no “Conservative War on Science” but there sure is a “progressive” war on truth.
#666
> > I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having
> >nothing more to do with it until they
> > rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the
> >editorial board, but papers
> > get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Phil
Some material has apparently been removed from UEA computers, and is now held privately by Jones and Briffa. Surely that does not put it out of range of FOI – perhaps someone needs to get an FOI application in pronto. (It should of course be sufficient for UEA to be alerted to the fact that material that belongs to them has been removed, thus causing them to retrieve it, but somehow I suspect it would not happen quite like that.)
>>
Larry in Texas says:
November 23, 2011 at 12:26 am
A physicist says:
November 22, 2011 at 7:51 am
I wonder who this troll really is.
<<
His first post was so content free, that the “bot” claim seemed to hold some merit. However, his later posts seem more troll-like than bot-like. I think he may have been Irwin Allen’s science advisor for the TV series “Lost in Space.” One of my favorite “Lost in Space” robot nonsense quotes is:
“Warning! The craft is surrounded by a force field in the fifth dimension, which is mathematically impossible.”
Doesn’t this sound just like “A physicist?”
Jim
After reading through a hundred or so emails, what stands out the most is that all of IPCC’s thousands of pages is nothing but sophisticated curve-fitting on a grandiose scale, with hundreds of instigators busily filling it, and very crafty I must add. But seems the people guiding this wagon, giving the orders, is always UCAR, NCAR or UEA. Why? Why do these entities have such ultimate power?
Of this fitting, I don’t want to imply proper curve fitting, as improper as that is per proper science, but curve fitting to match a preconceived warming trend. If it doesn’t go up, that’s a bad model run and clearly needs further adjustments of course. And what you take away after reading all of this is… this is nuts! this is not science, not even close.
For instance, in 0851 it is says:
That’s right, that will fix it, now let’s just pick and choose different equations of all things to fit. That takes the cake and you should get my message. You keep seeing this type of subtle fiddling and fitting scattered everywhere within the words in these e-mails. Sometimes it is even picking-and-choosing entire peer-reviewed papers to support some other related relationship fit the cause, always picked for the warmest results. See some of Phil Jones emails.
Should make any real scientist sick. I have kept skeptical of other skeptics on this very matter but now I see what they have saying all along. Yes, sorry to be harsh, but, that’s all IPCC reports are, fancy ‘scientific’ trash. Can’t trust a bit of it, they are contaminated by the methods, but not necessarily the data.
from Phil Jones Tue, 16 Nov 1999
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.
I just had to chime in on this joy’s occasion after seeing the initial report on Drudge.
Tis the season;
Christmas by Heineken – Let It Snow / Best ad