CRU's Dr. Phil Jones on "the lack of warming"

“Tim, Chris, I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020”

Question: If warming really threatens to destroy human civilization, why was Jones hoping for warming?

And if the world was still warming in 2009, why did Jones refer to “lack of warming”?

Email 4195

Tim, Chris, I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020.

I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.

Maybe he needs a backup plan:

MacCracken suggests that Phil Jones start working on a “backup” in case Jones’ prediction of warming is wrong

ClimateGate FOIA grepper! – if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong

In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.

We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared.

Best, Mike MacCracken [Note that Obama’s chief science advisor, John Holdren, is copied on this email]

Thanks to Tom Nelson for spotting these

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Tim Osborne

Gotcha
All I can say is wow – that is a good one.

Beesaman

It must be all the cracks in his AGW theory that’s letting all the heat escape!

rabbit

Clearly Phil Jones was doing politics, not science.

Stacey

Jones
Must be feeling the heat now?

Paul Westhaver

Why is Phil Jones “hoping” that he is wrong the lack of warming?? Why would an impartial “scientist” be hoping one way or another?
He is a liar. He is not a man dedicated to science. He is a weasel dedicated to politics and abusing science in the process.

David L.

OH NOOOOOO!!!! The “problem” seems to be taking care of itself!!!! We have to act fast before the “problem” goes away. Quick, recraft the message and limit SO2 emissions to keep the planet cookin’…..we need to keep the grant money flowing or else we’ll have to get real jobs.

JJB MKI

Wow. Phil, let me be the first to say: the models are no good. Managed to rustle up a ‘quantified explanation’ yet?

What’s the sulfate hypothesis?

Ian W

We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared.
Best, Mike MacCracken [Note that Obama’s chief science advisor, John Holdren, is copied on this email]

Interesting last line. So why does a courtier — sorry Czar of the US President need to know how the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit is going to explain that the world isn’t warming?

He really needs to Phil in the blanks in his AGW theory as there currently seems to be nothing left but blanks.

Mike M

In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is
> > right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong.

This spaghetti logic implies that if the sulfate hypothesis is wrong then his prediction of warming is then correct. Who deemed these to be mutually exclusive in the first place, Nancy?
No! The NH warming WRT the SH suggests that sulfate hypothesis is wrong and …. so was the global warming prediction.
Well, at least he can find solace in getting the “Skeptics will be all over us” part correct.

dp

The message, not the science is what these craven manipulators defend, and that defense is mounted because the message is well funded. There exists no such funding for a contrary message, but if it did I have no doubt these same craven manipulators would, “for the sake of balance”, crush the opposition to grab those funds as well.
As a consumer of the results of the investigations of these craven manipulators we have some skin in the game. We are also the funders, you see. Using the same flash mob tactics of the craven manipulators and with the energy of crowd sourcing coordinated so successfully by Anthony with his weather station siting project, we can own the process again, and see that funds for climate research go to reputable institutions.
Mr. Watts – how can we help?

David Ball

What I see is proof positive that whatever the climate is doing, they are sticking to their guns. Truth be damned. Science be damned.

More Soylent Green!

Science, schmience. Political advocacy is the name of the game here. All funded on the taxpayer dime.
Welcome to the post-normal world.

AndyL

The warmists’ big problem is the lack of a major volcano in the last decade or so. As a result they have no excuse for lack of warming.
When they make predictions, they probably assumed that a volcano (which normally occurs every few years) would give them enough wriggle room if the predictions were wrong.

jerry

Back in the good old days we’d be heating up the tar, plucking the feathers, and finding an empty boxcar to shove these morons into.
Instead we keep sending them millions of our hard earned dollars and euros.

Al Gored

“Question: If warming really threatens to destroy human civilization, why was Jones hoping for warming?”
Indeed. This is an extremely inconvenient question, to put it mildly. So while Jones hopes for his imaginary doomsday, I hope that this revealing quote becomes a main headline of this whole story.
He hopes for his imagined doomsday just to prove him right? Egomaniac. Zealot.
Or he knows that his doomsday is BS but still wants some warming to prove he is right? Lying egomaniacal zealot.
Or, like the Greenies in general, he hopes for some sign of their imagined doomsday to keep driving their real agenda? Lying egomaniacal zealous useful idiot.
The ‘anti-human’ mentality of the Greenies is sick. It probably reflects how much they subconsciously hate themselves.
In the meantime, how soon until we hear the sob stories about poor Phil having a mental breakdown or playing some other victim card?

David L.

So switching to low sulfur coal in our power plants was actually a bad thing? Now to put the sulfur back into the gasoline and the “problem” is solved!!!!
One questoin: what’s the stoichiometric ratio of SO2 to CO2 to obtain no temperature effect?

Joachim Seifert

The damned skeptics….. if they found out that I want and pray for global warming……hopefully not before I cash in my pension entitlements….

Len

This all sounds like the return of lysenkoism where a corrupt and fawning scientist did anything the ruthless dictator wanted for his personal gain and power. Now, AGW “scientists” will do anything to influence the policies of nations and the UN for their personal monetary gain and power over billions of the world’s poor and suffering. What a nasty blow to the health and welfare of billions these corrupt and conspiring people have brought. To continue the Soviet analogy, the AGW lysenkoists have duped and misled millions of useful idiots. What a blow to all science.

Henry Galt

Cause in the Community.
.
.
.
[It’s a Brit ref – Margaret Thatcher removed funding and mentally disabled people became dependant on their relatives and charity rather than the health service and institutions. It was dubbed “Care in the Community” with claims that it was “better” and cheaper]

Scott Covert

Palm => Face.

EternalOptimist

He wants to wear my smug grin away does he ?
I’m vexed. I havn’t been this vexed in a long time

The goal is reducing human impact on the air, regardless of whether people were suffering due to the anthropogenic changes. They are being driven by concerns that the push for the U.S. govt to “get serious” might be derailed.
Global warming was a convenient excuse to convince people to do something that Jones, Mann et al want them to do for other, personal reasons. It might be the pleasure of a pristine, natural atmosphere, it might be to get back at the kid who made fun of them at school, it might be because they are emotionally scared that the Earth will end up like Venus etc. The alarmism is a rationalization, a crutch to justify the efforts to others and possibly even to themselves in many cases..

AGW Heretic

Hey Phil, really sucks when real world data does not meet your theory doesn’t it? It’s called being a real scientist – you know, data, theory, test and prove or disprove theory.
AGW became a religion long ago; it’s not science.

Tez

My smug grin has just widened. Bwhahahaha.

Interstellar Bill

It must be that they’re picturing all that missing heat building up somewhere,
(if only they could find it)
and all they want is that it gets out of its cage sooner,
else it will build up so intensely as eventually to broil us overnight.
Every Doom-sayer instinctively knows that Doomsday delayed
is Doomsday intensified.
We have to atone for our carbon sins sooner or later.

Ken Hall

“the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.”
Well that is telling…
No concern there for the world’s second biggest and fastest growing emitter of CO2 at that time, China? Now the world’s biggest.

Phil Jones is about as ignorant a person as anyone in his position can be. He truly doesn’t understand. That’s why he blames everything but the real cause on ‘climate change’. Let’s let an educated adult explain it to him:

The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat… For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century. [my emphasis]

Jones and his mendacious clique are pushing the CO2 narrative for money and fame. They have no scientific evidence – none – showing that CO2 is causing climate change. They are simply lying for money and self-aggrandizement, and their scientific misconduct amounts to defrauding the public that pays for their nonsense.

Honest ABE

“Question: If warming really threatens to destroy human civilization, why was Jones hoping for warming?”
It is either due to money and reputation – or he doesn’t believe it is actually a threat.
Perhaps a bit of both.

DocMartyn

“We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared”
It’s sort of like watching a man repeatedly hitting the nose-cap of a large bomb with a lump hammer. You know its going to end in tears, but just not when.

Duster

Maurizio Morabito (omnologos) says:
November 30, 2011 at 9:50 am
What’s the sulfate hypothesis?

You can get more information by searching on “global dimming”, but the short version is that very fine grained sulfates are thought to serve to nucleate very small ice crystal at high altitudes. Because of their small size they are thought to have a comparatively lengthy residency in the atmosphere. The ice crystals increase the earth’s albedo. Known SO3 sources include coal-burning power plants, jet planes at high altitudes and volcanic eruptions, which can all increase atmospheric SO3, reducing direct surface irradiance, thus reducing the number poor infrared photons lost, trapped in the atmosphere and unable to find their way back to space. Since the volcanic arena has been remarkably active this year, you can expect another cool season or two.

Re: David Ball’s comment, “What I see is proof positive that whatever the climate is doing, they are sticking to their guns. Truth be damned. Science be damned.”
I don’t believe this is a fair interpretation. The discussion makes it clear that the participants are aware of their own fallibility, as in, “I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability.”
No attempt here to fake or fudge data, rather an explicit acknowledgment that to treat anthropogenic carbon emissions and natural climate variability as the only factors affecting global mean temperature is incorrect.
The reference to the “sulfate issue” is eminently sensible, since anthropogenic sulfur emissions, which have a cooling effect, have likely been increasing due to increases in Chinese coal-fired power generation, increased marine traffic, etc.
There is much else in the released emails to show that, for the most part, climate scientists are thinking with proper scientific open-mindedness, unlike their more extreme political partisans.
Clearly, the desire is expressed in the emails to come out of the argument about climate change on the winning side. But scientists are not lobotomized thinking machines. They are self-serving humans like the rest of us. If you doubt it, consider the dispute over the infinitesimal calculus between Newton and Leibniz, in which the chief protagonists or their partisans resorted to the most violent abuse including the use of the terms “thief,” “toady,” and “ape.” In comparison, the debate between Mike Mann and Steve McIntyre over the hockey stick graph has been conducted with collegial restraint.
What Climategate shows, as I have discussed here, is how scientists actually think. It also shows how the integrity of the scientific process can be jeopardized by outside political and financial influence. On balance, I would say that Climategate makes the climate science community look better on the inside than it does in public, where members tend to parrot the party line — perceived as a requirement of project funding in an Al-Gore-twisted world, and to maintain their public standing as people doing vitally important work.

Wow, At what point will the authorities be called into investigate and prosecute these scoundrels? If nothing else there is clear evidence against them in conspiring to commit fraud.
“I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong.”
In hindsight this makes a complete tool of Richard Black from the BBC, his article on the lack of warming sounds exactly like the “back up plan” as set out and mentioned above, he was (if I remember correctly) blaming china’s coal power stations for producing sulfates that caused the decade long “lack of global warming”, I think prof. J. Curry too had a disagreement with Blacks lame excuse (“back up plan”) for the lack of Global warming.
The game is up!! The Scam is over, they know it and we know it. (I’m actually swearing big-time here, I’m so damn angry).

John Moran

MacCracken has an interesting outlook on sulphates vs ocean acidification:
“Sure, a bit more acid deposition, but it is not harmful over the ocean (so we only/mainly emit for trajectories heading out over the ocean) and the impacts of deposition may well be less that for global warming (will be a tough comparison, but likely worth looking at). “

JohnH

Maurizio Morabito (omnologos) says:
November 30, 2011 at 9:50 am
What’s the sulfate hypothesis?
The sulphate theory says the recent cooling is due to too much coal being burnt in China and India which reflects the heat outwards and negates the warming of the extra CO2. When these sulpahtes go away with a clean up then CO2 warming will recommence.
2 problems, the cooling started before Chinas dash to burn coal and the cooling does not showup in the same areas as the increase in sulphates.
Its a back of fag packet theory dreamt up to keep the faithful happy.

John from CA

” John Holdren, is copied on this email”
That’s absolutely outrageous!!!!

sunderlandsteve

“Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.”
For what ever reason, sulphates, solar activity, natural variation,etc, the point is if the world is really cooling then they and their hypothosis is wrong, along with their models! Thats the whole point surely.

Peter Miller

Gavin over at Real Climate sums up the situation well, the only problem is that he has incorrectly identified the writers of ‘crap’ papers, he obviously meant Jones, Mann and the rest of the Team.
“In most fields you would be correct. But in climate science and a few other highly politicized fields, “crap” papers are forever being plucked out of obscurity and thrust into the public domain with highly misleading press campaigns, often with the support of the authors. When that happens, scientists who write “non-crap” papers are assailed left, right and center (though mostly right) with demands to respond to the “crap” results. It is unfortunately unavoidable – it comes in congressional hearings, radio talk shows, journalists, members of the public, concerned colleagues etc. Every time this happens, someone usually has to go to the trouble of outlining in excruciating detail when such a high-profile media-backed politically-connected piece of “crap”, is indeed a piece of “crap”. This takes time and effort that would be far more productively spent on doing “non-crap” research. It is frequently personally distressing, because the person or persons who take this on, then become targets of said campaigners. Singer, Lindzen, Spencer, Miskolczi, Soon and Balinuas etc. have all produced “crap” to order with exactly this intention, and effect. Ignoring it is generally untenable. – gavin]”

Maurizio – the sulphate hypothesis argues that increasing sulphate emissions from for example China and India have countered the warming from increased carbon dioxide – the sulphur reflects sunlight and hence has a cooling effect….HOWEVER, the evidence does not support the hypothesis which is generated from an ignorance of sulphate dynamics on the part of modellers – who similarly attributed the lack of warming from 1950-1980 on the post-war sulphur releases. This was proven incorrect by 2005 with several papers showing the previous cooling was present in unpolluted regions and finally in 2007 by the IPCC admitting the sulphur effect was localised and not capable of global impact. They should have know this from simple aerodynamics – it takes a very big volcanic eruption of sulphates to cool the globe – big enough to get the sulphur high enough – industrial emissions do not get that height. So – it is hand waving aimed at environment correspondents too lazy to check the science.
Incidently, all the current climate models were supposedly validated by replicating the 1950-1980 dip in warming using models of sulphate aerosol – and not one has owned up to the error. maybe they quietly redid the parameters hoping no one would spill the beans. I give chapter and verse of this in my book ‘Chill: a reassessment of global warming theory’.
And more incidently, I would normally be able to communicate with the left-liberal-green organisations and newspapers, being of that political persuasion myself – but they won’t even enter a discourse, publish letters in newspapers, or articles, or even meet up for a discussion – and that leaves me wondering whether they are the same green philosophers I knew in the early days of the environmental movement – I think not – we are encountering a new political phenomenon – visible the other day when Michael MacCarthy – the Independent’s environment correspondent invoked Margaret Thatcher and her understanding of science in support of the new green agenda!

John From New Zealand.

@Al Gored
‘In the meantime, how soon until we hear the sob stories about poor Phil having a mental breakdown or playing some other victim card?’
I couldn’t help thinking the same thing. I wonder what the odds are at the TAB that Phil Jones will be crying into his weeties within the next fortnight.

Dave Wendt

Beesaman says:
November 30, 2011 at 9:35 am
It must be all the cracks in his AGW theory that’s letting all the heat escape!
It’s not just the heat escaping, but as in the words of my favorite Old Philosopher Leonard Cohen
“There is a crack, a crack in everything That’s how the light gets in”

The birds they sang at the break of day
“Start again”, I heard them say
Don’t dwell on what has passed away
Or what is yet to be
Ah, the wars they will be fought again
The holy dove, she will be caught again
Bought and sold and bought again
The dove is never free
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That’s how the light gets in
We asked for signs, the signs were sent
The birth betrayed, the marriage spent
Yeah, the widowhood of every government
Signs for all to see
I can’t run no more with that lawless crowd
While the killers in high places say their prayers out loud
But they’ve summoned, they’ve summoned up a thundercloud
And they’re going to hear from me
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That’s how the light gets in
You can add up the parts, you won’t have the sum
You can strike up the march, there is no drum
Every heart, every heart to love will come
But like a refugee
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That’s how the light gets in
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That’s how the light gets in
That’s how the light gets in
That’s how the light gets in

jaypan

“In any case, of … your prediction of warming might end up being wrong …
I would … suggest, … that you also do some checking …, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong.” (Mike MacCracken to Phil Jones)
Means in plain language: “Our AGW hypothesis may prove dead wrong, but instead of giving it up we need some sort of explanations to keep our influence and the big bucks going anyway.”
Can it be said any clearer?
John Holdren was copied. Didn’t he stop this game then?
MacCracken, Director of Climate Institute “The Climate Institute has been in a unique position to inform key decision-makers.”
Doesn’t his advise more sound like “intentionally misinforming key decision makers” ?
Should be a wake-up call for those guys. Being this level, you don’t want to be fooled, right?
Except you’re part of the game.

Bill Marsh

“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
D Eisenhower. Jan 1961
Smart man that President Eisenhower.

CanSpeccy says that these charlatans are “doing vitally important work.”
Nonsense. Everything they’re doing is self-serving, from grant trolling, to constant free jaunts to places like Bali, Hawaii and other holiday venues, to their outrageous and hypocritical carbon footprints. And the ‘collegial restraint’ has been entirely on the side of skeptics like Steve McIntyre. Junior despots like Michael Mann and Phil Jones squirm around, doing everything possible to avoid cooperating. They provide no transparency, which is essential to the scientific method. The only time they answer questions is in well scripted, friendly venues – and that includes the so-called “investigations,” which were no more than whitewashed coverups intended to quickly put the problem behind them. Mann even took part in strategy sessions where the questions were formulated! And saying that this sort of thing has happened before is no excuse. The public is being defrauded by the official demonization of “carbon”. This isn’t an argument between scientists with egos. This is conspiring to take money from already hard-bitten taxpayers, and these connivers will say or do anything to keep their gravy train from being derailed.
CanSpeccy doesn’t seem to understand that there is no scientific evidence that CO2 causes climate change, despite decades of searching for any such evidence. The evidence just doesn’t exist. But the money – our tax money – is wasted in the $billions every year on what has turned out to be a complete non-problem.
Anyone reading these astonishing emails sees a small group of thoroughly dishonest scientists conniving to game the system for their own benefit. The climate peer review system has been totally corrupted; is there any doubt? Any doubt at all? Being an apologist for these reprobates is unacceptable. What they are doing is wrong, and exasperating. They need to be called on the carpet, not excused.

R. Gates

TheGoodLocust says:
November 30, 2011 at 10:44 am
“Question: If warming really threatens to destroy human civilization, why was Jones hoping for warming?”
It is either due to money and reputation – or he doesn’t believe it is actually a threat.
Perhaps a bit of both.
_____
Of course there is an alternative and equally plausible explanation. Jones really does believe that long term human induced warming is a serious issue that requires attention, and feared that any short-term “natural variability” that caused short-term cooling, no matter the cause (sulfates, quiet sun, PDO, etc) might mask the long-term warming and forestall the global action required to slow the build-up of greenhouse gases. This alternative explanation will of course upset skeptics who’d rather paint Dr. Jones as a money-grubbing tool of the political power elite, rather than a truly concerned scientist. The explanation you choose to accept for the motivations behind his comments, will, like most things in life, depend on what you want to see.

Gates, if you actually believe what you wrote about Jones, then you either haven’t read his emails where he schemes and connives to destroy the careers of honest scientific skeptics who have done nothing more than to express a different point of view, or your reading comprehension is zilch. Jones is an unethical game player; Michael Mann’s corrupt UK equivalent.

Smokey says: “CanSpeccy says that these charlatans are “doing vitally important work.
Nonsense. Everything they’re doing is self-serving…”
Yes, well that actually it was a point I made that scientists are self-serving people just like Smokey.
As for:
“CanSpeccy doesn’t seem to understand that there is no scientific evidence that CO2 causes climate change…”
Well, in not understanding that I’m in the good company of people like Steve McIntyre and Lord Monckton of Brenchley who readily acknowledge that CO2 absorbs outgoing IR radiation and thus warms the atmosphere, although they say, by not much.
But Smokey seems to be a sort of Al Gore mirror image, so nothing satisfies her/him except except relentless vituperation directed against climate scientists.

richard verney

Further to:
JohnH says:
November 30, 2011 at 11:12 am
///////////////////////////////////////
3rd problem: back in the 1970s and 80s when global warming first took flight, the West was burning a lot of coal and at and that time there was not the same sulphur restrictions which are in enforced today in the West, Thus if sulphate emissions will counterbalance the warming effect of CO2 then this should have occurred in the late 70s and 80s and there ought not to have been any significant global warming during that time.
The cAGW protagonists can’t have it both ways. If Sulphate emisions explain the lack of warming since 1998 the cAGW protagonists need to explain why it did not similarly stiffle the warming in the late 70s and 80s.

R. Gates

Smokey says:
November 30, 2011 at 12:13 pm
Gates, if you actually believe what you wrote about Jones, then you either haven’t read his emails where he schemes and connives to destroy the careers of honest scientific skeptics who have done nothing more than to express a different point of view, or your reading comprehension is zilch. Jones is an unethical game player; Michael Mann’s corrupt UK equivalent.
____
You are a perfect example of the truth in the last sentence of my previous post.