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
I’ll have to give it to you though, A physicist, you are making the case for CO2 = CAGW about as well as it can be made. So if the best Climate Scientists will still not accept you as one of their own and share some Gov’t gravy with you, it looks like they are probably violating your “Civil Rights”, or something, and the great Gloria Allred will no doubt be available to help you recover a “cash award” now that she’s been so unfairly stuffed silent in her valiant pro bono “smear Herman Cain” campaign.
A physicist, you finally got lucky!
The Canadian route is broken constantly by ice breakers starting as soon as they can begin work, the Russians do the same on the Northeast Passage. That route is worked all summer to keep that ice broken up. I am not convinced that if the ice breakers didn’t work those routes that they would be naturally ice-free.
There is currently some controversy of if both passages were open and the only people making the absurd (in my opinion) “first time in ten thousand years” are the “warmanistas”.
1. Completely ice free summers were probably the norm during the Holocene climate optimum, less than 10,000 years ago.
2. Ice free passages during the MWP were probably the norm in summer as well when temperatures were warmer than today.
So you have to go back only 1000 years (not 10,000) to get a regularly ice-free arctic passages.
And again, it is likely the satellite pictures were misinterpreted and both passages were NOT open. Traffic via the Northeast Passage is accompanied by Russian icebreakers (they have at least one nuclear ice breaker for this purpose).
[snip. O/T. ~dbs, mod.]
@BC Lance, I’m amused too. But, he’s not a bot, just a guy with a weak one-track mind.
Over on the PJ Tattler, he accidentally self outed himself by making two identical comments, one with his email address and one with his handle. See the two comments here where he self outs:
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/comment/66750/
and
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/comment/66753/
Since he self-outed publicly he’s fair game to tell you about.
Using his email address, you find “a physicist” who takes after Bill Nye, complete with a clown tie:
http://www.orthop.washington.edu/PatientCare/OurServices/Research/ResearchScientists/JohnASidlesPhD.aspx
He’s sharp about some things, like sports medicine and some quantum stuff, getting an award this year, but dumb as a post when it comes to other things.
http://engage.washington.edu/site/PageNavigator/UWMedicine/OnlineNews/OnlineNews_5132011R
At PJ we soon tired of his clown-like ways like you guys.
So I would accept a statement saying something like “Possibly the first time they have both been ice free since satellite observation in 1979” but that would be about as far as I would be willing to go because anything else is simply speculation. We can not observe if the passage is open before sending ships in there. We couldn’t do that before so it might have been open many times when ships didn’t make the transit because they couldn’t know in advance if it was open or not.
David L, thanks for the reply and agreement. By the words you write in your posts above you are a very honest and thoughtful scientist, it shines through. Thank goodness you have the insight to see what I was pointing out. Few do.
On fitting, here is a link I stumbled upon while reading comments on The Blackboard that shows others are also seeing this near invisible and insidious pattern within the emails released.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/son-of-climategate/#comment-85960
Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #85960)
November 22nd, 2011 at 11:43 am
To me the part of the email excerpted by Zeke and shown below is very telling and makes the point rather directly without any nuance as I view it. In the end selecting a model by the method endorsed below is not very different than a direct tuning of the model. It is those models that get “thrown away” that we have to know and talk about.
…
Tuning without explicit tuning.
Fitting without explicitly fitting.
The bolding is mine. Read it.
“We can not observe if the passage is open”
Should be “We can now observe if the passage is open”
Well, to get the topic back on thread then, how about this email from Chris Folland in the Met Office. He says that:
However this fits well only when an underlying net GHG+aerosol warming of 0.15C per decade is fitted in the statistical models. In a sense the methods we use would automatically fit to a reduced net warming rate so Mike McCracken can be told that. In other words the method creates it own transient climate sensitivity for recent warming. But the forcing rate underlying the method nevertheless perhaps sits a bit uncomfortably with the absolute forcing figures we are using from AR4.
That sounds to me like they know the math isn’t adding up. Anyone else?
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=4621
Anthony, is it possible that “A physicist” is just another reincarnation of “thefordperfect” mentioned in the files?
If these emails are so “spectacular” why has it been two years since the original release of stolen emails before these surfaced, conveniently well after the inquiry on climategate concluded.
I have seen nothing yet that I call spectacular, just the same old clipped out of context stuff as the first set of email back in Nov. 09.
mandas says:
“YAAAWWWNNNNNN!!!!!!!
I predict these emails will be twice as important as the past lot; ie 2 x zero = zero.”
Don’t delude yourself. The first email dump did tremendous damage. This one is the second torpedo in the CAGW ship. Sooner or later she’s going down.
I am fascinated by the deluded notion of the “environmentalist” that it is nature that is weak and civilization that is strong.
A Physicist: It’s been nearly four hours now since my last response to you and you’ve posted subsequently five times, but failed to address the essential question(s) I posed. You have, apparently, abandoned the field in defeat. You have no evidence that now is warmer than 1000 years ago, do you. Neither did Mann with his cherry-picked Bristle Cone Pines or Briffa with his Yamal tree rings.
You seem terribly stuck with ships in the Arctic and the spotty Russian Arctic record. But that doesn’t prove that the Arctic is presently abnormally warm either. Avoiding slogans, cherries, and witches, here are some insights intended to help you better understand Arctic climate variations.
From AD1500 to before AD1300, there was a population of indigenous people (Thule culture) and a previous Dorset culture going back to around 500BC. The geology around known Dorset and Thule habitation sites in northern Greenland show that the sea level was up to three meters higher than now — even when corrected for PGR. In other words. It was much warmer then than now. Even the IPCC’s worst case scenarios measured by temperature or sea level do not rise to mean conditions experienced by those cultures in the High Arctic.
Archaeologists have found around 600 farms settled by Vikings from AD950 to 1350, and more sites are being found as ice recedes. These farms grew wheat to feed livestock. That can’t be done now. It’s too cold at any of the Viking habitation sites. In other words, it is much cooler now than it was just 700 years ago.
These simple, known facts demolish statements like “Nine of the last ten years have been the warmest in the history of the planet” (Congressman Ed Markey on CNN) or “1999 was the warmest in human history” (Al Gore during the presidential campaign). It also seriously compromises the conclusions of MBH98 (the Hockey Stick paper).
You are welcome to present contrary evidence, but, unfortunately, it appears your depth of knowledge is inadequate to defend your notion of accelerating human-caused global warming.
David Ball says:
November 23, 2011 at 7:32 pm
A physicist has done exactly what he set out to do. Distract. I wonder what benefit this is to him. Pretty sad and infantile way to get your jollies, …….
[Reply: True, and if he continues off topic he will be snipped. ~dbs, mod.]
He’s a clear fire-spitting AGW troll, not A physicist, except possibly by letters daddy bought most likely,,, that little sign is hard to see that others should really heed —
PLEASE, DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS
OT or not! We have already heard everything he says many times over.
If the MSM shouts about this new batch they will have to admit that they bought AGW hook like and sinker.
If the academic world admits they were wrong, they fear they will lose funding and credibility (ok they both have a point there 8^D ).
None of them will EVER admit they are wrong. That takes courage and humility. I would have tons more respect for someone who admits he is wrong. Even consider further communication, otherwise, ………..
I am also wondering what other things are still unknown,……..
My personal opinion only.
And it has been pretty well documented that Pacific Ocean sea levels were 2 meters higher than today during the Holocene Climate Optimum. That is from coral records so it might have actually been briefly higher but not long enough for substantial coral growth to occur that can withstand the pounding of today’s surf.
These claims about passage openings are based purely on speculation. It is quite obvious that it was much warmer in the higher latitudes during the MWP than it is today simply because things were being grown in places where those things won’t grow today. Valleys were being cultivated that are currently still under snow in the Alps, too, and as those alpine glaciers recede, they are exposing 5,000 year old wood showing that 5000 years ago that area was not only ice free, it was ice free long enough to become forested. And you must consider that where we are finding the wood is probably a considerable distance down the valley from where the glacier picked it up and transported it. 6,000 years ago there was much less glaciation at temperate latitudes than there is today.
It is quite possible that when Ötzi the ice man died, there was no ice there.
[snip]
Climategate continues to grow; the hoax never ends; time to spend our time & energy solving “real” problems.
A Physicist;
Putting aside for the moment the question of how long it has been since the arctic was ice free, can I ask some rather obvious questions?
How does the arctic being ice free in any way show anything other than the earth has been warming? The question is what is causing the warming, is it not? Do you have definitive evidence to show that the lower levels of ice are tied to anything other than the general warming trend the earth has been in since the last ice age?
wayne says:
November 23, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Ease up there wayne. I haven’t been battlin buddy. Read the thread. Haven’t said word one to a podiatrist. There have been hundreds like him throughout Anthony’s five years blogging. Unfortunately there will be hundreds more. They get bludgeoned and then go back their “home” blogs and claim they laid waste on WUWT? Cowards the lot. Appreciate if you back up off me about it.
A physicist said; “slogan-chanting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting, wont someone please think of the children *sob* also slogan-chanting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting and the children, dont forget the children and slogan-chanting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting, also children. Never, never forget the children and slogan-chanting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting….”
He could have said other stuff as well but it was hard to get to for all the slogan-chanting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting.
To recap:
1. There is no evidence that today’s temperatures are unusual for the recent Holocene (geologically speaking).
2. There is no evidence that the rate of recent temperature change is unusual and outside of the normal natural changes we have seen in the past.
3. There is apparently considerable doubt in the minds of the scientific community that they can show any human introduced signal in recent temperature variation.
4. The notion that human CO2 release will cause any measurable temperature change is a hypothesis validated only by computer models created by people subscribing to that hypothesis with no validating evidence found in observational records.
http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/0059.txt
A call to climate campaigners!
What do you think would be the most effective
way to radicalise the UN agenda and protect the climate from our current economic
and political systems? There are plans for a team to work in USA on a parallel
campaign.
The project should begin by the end of 1999.
@ur momisugly 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?
_____________________________________
Dave, I won’t get into a simple voting contest but I will give you some information of what I understand in physics so you can make the call yourself. Please, look it up any of this to confirm what I about to say. And a few statements will say ‘always’ but translate this to so rare you can ignore this immeasurable fraction.
First, there is no strictly vibrational absorption. It always includes rotation simultaneously. All IR radiation absorptions are rovibrational in nature. Look at that spectrum of CO2 and you will see lower side bands. Those are the vibrational at 667-669/cm plus any rotational energy.
Now, you asked how long a CO2 molecule holds on to the energy, its not so simple and you have to delve into Einstein A & B coefficients to answer that. The coefficients are in per second units. A is the rate at a specific wavelength that absorption occurs. B coefficient is on the emittance side. I have seen on the web a table of these but lost all of my climate notes, 800 papers and a thousand links recently so you will have to search for it. It’s in a PDF paper on spectrometry as I recall. That table listed the seven or eight prime frequencies clustered about the 667 prime vibrational peak. The rates varied from ~3/secont to 600/second depending on the exact frequency.
Now looking at the affinity of each frequency to absorb incoming radiation. The peak at 667 or so has the highest affinity where absorption is the strongest, think more tightly bound, low rate of emission, lower coefficient and less affinity on each bump to either the left and right of the peak, right being lower frequency, less energy. But these high rate emissions (600/second) are in the rotational component and there are a huge number of rotational energy levels, any molecule can easily jump between any of these levels shedding photons in the far infrared and microwave and you can imagine this causes a movement of that molecule’s energy to the right toward lower frequencies, for the energy just went down. These small emissions of rotational energy being shed can move the energy level clear past the peak and to the right side of CO2’s IR spectrum where the Einstein coefficient is larger, let’s pick one, 30/second. See it’s not a simple yes no answer.
Just remember, that about 40% of all outgoing radiation coming from the atmosphere at TOA is in the far infrared and microwave spectra range and this is primarily these rotational energies being shed by GHGs and the atmosphere as a whole. All accelerated electrons radiate, as in every collision, where either velocity and/or direction change.
Well… that’s the way I understand it.
See maybe
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/molecule/rotrig.html#c4
http://orca.phys.uvic.ca/~tatum/ Tatum, Stellar Atmospheres (ignore that on electron levels)
http://www.nrao.edu/index.php/learn/radioastronomy/radiowaves (IR included)
A Physicist;
Manning’s incredibly sketchy two-man expedition failed — like all previous circumnavigation attempts had failed — because summer pack-ice blocked the attempt, forcing Manning and his hapless graduate student Andrew Macpherson to hike-out 100 miles over unexplored tundra, with the Arctic winter coming-on fast. The article tells the whole story in a wonderfully dry tone.>>>
Cleverly glossing over the fact that while Manning failed in 1952, Roald Amundsen completed the journey in 1906.