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
Dr. Michael Mann, wayward climate scientist not doing science but political games, now confirmed with his own incriminating email: “1485> Mann: the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing the PR battle. That’s what the site [Real Climate] is about.”
Evidently Mann’s Real Climate site is a political machine not a science site. Good to know. Thanks for this very important clear confirmation, Dr. Mann, of what we already suspected.
http://foia2011.org/
You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours….
“Hi Phil,
I hope things are going well these days, and that the recent round of attacks have died
down. seems like some time since I’ve heard from you.
Please see below: Gavin was wondering if there is any update in status on this?
By the way, still looking into nominating you for an AGU award, I’ve been told that the
Ewing medal wouldn’t be the right one. Let me know if you have any particular options
you’d like me to investigate…
thanks,
mike
REDACTED- Original MessageREDACTED
Subject: Re: Even more on Loehle’s 2000 year climate analysis”
From: http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=130
GREAT NEWS: The Dept of Energy is funding Phil Jones! #1765
Is it perhaps possible to move the “fold” way up in this sticky post, so that it’s easier to find new posts beneath it? I think one paragraph, perhaps the most recent update, would be sufficient. I’d really appreciate it! Thanks.
Here’s some REAL climate science pointing to an inconvenient truth for the warmists, which uses simple not sports-massaged statistics and make-up:
This expose will not rest until at least climategate 46.0!
HAHA!
I even include my full workings and raw data unlike all the tax-spongers (I mean ‘climate scientists’):
Climategate 1&2 + 220000 emails to come at 5000 per release
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi 173-6 (1883)
Tweeking The Guardian:
letters@guardian.co.uk
UEA should demand return of computer records taken by UEA employee
University of East Anglia is rightly upset with hackers taking their computer records, however UEA should be doubly upset that one of their own employees appears to have been also taking the university’s computer records.
In one of the released email UEA employee Keith Briffa writes “UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC task.” [http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=2044 ]
Just as the hacker stole from UEA, it appears the Mr. Briffa also took records that rightfully belonged to stole university. Mr. Briffa notes that he kept those records “….which I copied onto private storage”.
Knowing now that those records still exist, UEA should demand that Mr. Briffa return all the records, and UEA should immediately provide copies of the records covered in the freedom of information request to all parties whom Mr. Briffa wrongfully denied access.
Alec ….
…….
Fairfax, VA 22032
703…….
More bitchiness.
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=6455
#1213
Scroll down to the comments in Caps.
#0344 is a great e-mail chain on UAE and FOI strategery.
#1175 Dave Palmer
On phone to ICO at moment awaiting input on the section 77 question – am arguing that
taking the files off was to meet with our contraction obligations under which we received
it and to repair what we perceive as a lapse in security….
They have now stated they don’t think the removal of the data is in contravention of
section 77 in that the sole purpose of the removal was NOT to deny the requester his
legitimate right of access to the information. I did tell them that that our intention was
stated in our response to Mr. McIntyre; namely to deny him the information on the basis of
EIR Reg. 12(5)(f) & the public interest & this did not alter their position.
This still leaves us with a PR problem but eliminates the legal problem….
Cheers, Dave
I just read this quote from our resident physicist. As a mathematician, I would like to correct his ignorance. The BEAUTY of mathematics is that it does not change from one discipline to another. 2+2 equals 4 in chemistry, biology, and geology. So your statement is patently false. Perhaps you meant to say “for those who understand mathematics’. The only way the statement you made could be correct is if climate science math is a sham.
Lee says:
November 22, 2011 at 10:08 pm
Just one question: Who should “Release it all or else…”? Are you referring to Phil Jones (who claims he can’t find his data or methodology), or are you referring to Michael Mann (who is fighting with UVa against the release of his correspondence while at UVa–a public university)?
Or maybe you’re talking about the UEA–they have ALL of these emails and other documents but they’re anything but open. Might you be talking about James Hansen? He’s been fighting requests for open disclosure for years–and now we find he’s a tax dodger (among other things).
These folks have all deliberately limited the release of information. They’ve repeatedly fought FOIA requests. They work in secret and hide the details of their work from all but their “Team”.
And you’re right–they are not to be trusted or given the time of day.
ok, so you download the file and have 5000 text files. What can you do with them ?
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=N47O1293
Email Viewer. Just enter the folder location where the text files are, Then the program will list the emails and you can view them normally. Has navigation buttons, search tool.
Let me know what you think. It is free but Contributions would be welcomed 🙂
@Ron Cram Unfortunately, for all his analytical skill and calling out of bs, Jon Stewart is a firm believer in AGW (as well as woefully uninformed about Europe, but that’s another subject entirely)
For anyone using linux..
http://www.commandlinefu.com/commands/browse
for loads of clever commands to handle all these files.
Version with textwrapping ..
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=PJX17WB0
5336 — WWII, Aug1945, and instrumentation changes and a startling admission at the end:
> And as for the dip in 1945:
> Fig 2 shows the residual (ie with the COWL or ENSO time series
> removed) global-mean land and ocean time series. The point here is
> that the large dip in Aug 1945 does not show up in the land data.
>
>
> My impression from your emails last week is that the dip is almost
> certainly due to changes in instrumentation during the war. But it’s
> also my impression that the specific reasons for the dip are not yet
> known. It’s possible that the dip is offset by spurious rises in SSTs
> at the start of the war. But this isn’t certain. And even so, there is
> a large drop in SSTs between the period before the war (1939) and the
> period after the war (1945). To my eye, the residual ocean time series
> in Fig. 3 suggests temperatures ratcheted downwards spuriously in
> 1945.
>
>
> In our view, the dip in Aug 1945 is very important and warrants being
> highlighted in the literature. In fact, once you know it’s there, it’s
> hard to view any time series of global-mean temperatures and not
> wonder how different it would appear if the dip was not there. For
> example, Fig. 4 shows the raw and residual global-mean temperature
> time series assuming the 0.3 K drop in Aug 1945 is spurious. I realize
> the figure is crude, and it might not make it into the paper. But the
> point is that you would get a very, very different impression of 20th
> century temperature trends if the dip proves to be an artifact of the
> end of the war.
>
>
> So our main point regarding the drop in Aug 1945 is this: if we assume
> the dip is spurious, then the global-warming of the past century would
> be at least ~0.3 K larger than currently thought, and global-mean
> temperatures would have risen steadily throughout the past century.
Risen steadily = no AGW signature
Sorry computers on the fritz managed to copy before the web browser crashed so don’t have the exact file #, the PR machine that is Real Climate shows up alot :-
thanks for forwarding Phil,
Its amazing how much nonsense they are able to pack into a few pages. The Beck Co2 stuff
we just dealt w/ last week, and most of the other issues have been dealt with in the
past at RC. However, if folks think this is getting enough attention, maybe we need a
specific RC post debunking this.
I’ve copied to Gavin for his thoughts too.
The only good thing I’ve seen from these e-mails is the fact that members of the team that were not cc’d will now see exactly what other team members actually thought of them.
For example, you can bet that Mann didn’t see this email (out of context or not) until now:
“…Cook:
I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead…”
Maybe he should ask Cook to explain the full context of THAT message…
This chapter precedes the chapters on modeling and prediction. Therefore a
focus of the state of knowledge of the “processes” is that these are the
ingredients of models and what goes into models reflects our understanding
and the technology limitations. By the latter I mean restrictions through
space and time resolution, and so forth. The key questions, it seems to me,
concern the roles of convection and precipitation in climate and the global
atmospheric circulation, so that heat, moisture and momentum transports are
important, and what they mean for the water vapor, cloud, precipitation and
latent heating that result.
You may be interested in a study I was involved in on related matters:
Dai, A., F. Giorgi and K. E. Trenberth, 1999: Observed and model simulated
precipitation diurnal cycles over the contiguous United States.
J. Geophys. Res., \vol 104, (in press, March).
This study documents the diurnal cycle of precipitation over the United
States and how well it is simulated in high resolution regional (Giorgi’s)
models with different convective parameterizations. We have explored various
convection parameterizations over the United States in a high resolution
regional model and shown that none do it right. In particular all tend to
kick off convection prematurely compared with the real world and instability
does not build up adequately. Premature cloud formation occurs in the models
as a consequence and this prevents the correct solar heating from occurring,
impacting the development of the continental-scale “sea breeze” and
associated convergence at the surface which acts to trigger convection. No
known scheme can deal with the summer U.S. precipitation diurnal cycle.
I think this scale interaction problem is also involved in the failure of
models to deal with the Madden Julian Oscillation successfully. So this
stuff is intended to provoke you.
Other topics we listed under these categories include: lapse rate, vertical
coupling, model sensitivity, extremes, and orography.
Overall, we need some sense of how well we know these things and how limiting
the lack of knowledge might be on model simulations. Of course
parameterizations are not supposed to get the details and exact sequences
right but they are supposed to get the average effects right, so perhaps the
details don’t matter.
The first draft of the chapter is due by 14 May. This means I need your
contributions by 10 April if at all possible. (In fact I can’t use it much
before then owing to other travel commitments I have). Please copy Ray
Pierrehumbert on any responses.
Many thanks
I would appreciate an acknowledgement of this before I leave for New Zealand
next Tuesday, if possible.
Regards
Kevin
Not all WUWT posts/comments are substantially founded upon cherry-picking, witch-hunting, and slogan-shouting … but regrettably an increasing fraction of them are. However:
• cherry-picking of data gets harder as data gets better,
• fervent witch-hunts are finding … no witches, and
• the politics-first slogan-shouting is ringing hollow.
On other forums, sober-minded folks talk seriously about the challenges of energy, technology, and climate change, these sites include The Oil Drum, Season’s End, Republicans for Environmental Protection, Skeptical Science, GreenBiz, etc. And needless to say, the Department of Defense’s Quadrennial Defense Review 2010 tackles these climate-and-energy issues unflinchingly — as will every future Quadrennial Defense Review. For the simple reason that the realities of our times demands it.
Obviously there will always be plenty of folks folks whose skepticism (on any subject) is founded mainly upon cherry-picking, witch-hunting, and slogan-shouting; increasingly the main role of forums like WUWT is to provide a comforting echo-chamber within which cherry-picking, witch-hunting, and slogan-shouting are viewed as praiseworthy activities.
Meanwhile, the rest of the planet is busy creating humanity’s future.
In the documents file: statements.doc, I see…
>Re: Statement of European Scientists on Actions to Protect Global Climate
>Dear Colleague, Attached is a draft Statement that has been informally drawn up by Joe >Alcamo, Rob Swart and Mike Hulme working in Europe on climate issues. Its main purpose is to >bolster or increase support for controls of emissions of greenhouse gases in European >countries in the period leading up to Kyoto. The Statement is intended to be from European >scientists, and is aimed towards governments, citizen groups, and media in European countries. >The statement has specific goals in specific countries:
>1. In European countries where the government supports controls of greenhouse emissions: In >these countries, certain government ministries and other climate stakeholders in the country are >trying to get the government to retreat on its policies before Kyoto. Here, the Statement is >intended to be used by the government and citizen groups via the national media to support its >position.
> 2. in european countries where the government does not support controls of greenhouse >emissions: here, the statement is intended to help citizen groups and other stakeholders in the >country to convince the government to support controls of emissions.
This is activist ‘science’, not impartial science. I presume, simply to secure more funding.
Maybe the algorithm is mike’s trick?
At 10:10 31/07/2009, you wrote:
Dear all,
After the recent problems with ClimateAudit, Phil has asked for all
unnecessary files to be purged from the FTP server. You have a directory in /cru/ftp1/people. Please could you take a look to see what files need to remain there?
If you would like assistance with this, let me know. Please confirm by email when you’ve done it, so I can cross you off the list.
thanks
Mike
==================================================
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/phils-pre-cover-up/
Oh dear the warmists are in a flap ; once one accepts the documented evidence that CO2 is insignificant in warming the climate, all kinds of consequences follow logically