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

Can anyone explain what I’m seeing here?
I was playing around putting numbers in randomly and got this page: http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=8753 and wanted to read this one in full:
Shukla/IGES:[“Future of the IPCC”, 2008] It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.
putting the number direct into URL address line takes to a different email, the URL says http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=5131 but the email is 5181 (<< 5180 • 5181 • 5182 >>
date: Fri Aug 7 09:05:16 2009
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: geoeng
to: Tom Wigley , Ben Santer )
putting number into search box brings gives option of back to the original page:
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=7&search=5131&sisea_offset=20
23. README.TXT
…So I would guess that it will not be models or theory, but observation that will provide the answer to the question of how the climate will change in many decades time. Shukla/IGES: [“Future…
Which gives a bit more of the text..
Tried the 2009 email list, not there.
Looked in the 2011 list, not there:
Ah, just found another mention of it on offset=20 link on page 2 (http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=7&search=5131&sisea_offset=10)
– 18. 4579
REDACTEDeREDACTEDeREDACTEDeREDACTEDeREDACTEDeREDACTEDeREDACTEDe+01 1.4205131eREDACTEDeREDACTEDeREDACTEDeREDACTEDeREDACTEDeREDACTEDeREDACTEDe+03…
Clicking on 4579 takes to: http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=4529 and website cannot display the page
And, putting in the original wrong page URL, the 5181 I got instead of the 5131 which still appeared in the address line, I got, << 5230 • 5231 • 5232 >>
cc: Keith Briffa
date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
from: “David M. Ritson”
subject: Re: RCS
to: Tim Osborn
…OK, tried one more time.. putting 5231 direct into address line, I got:
<< 5280 • 5281 • 5282 >>
cc: “REDACTED”
date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 13:05:43 +0100
from: Merylyn McKenzie Hedger
subject: Fwd. re: US views on possible UK cooling- FYI
to: “REDACTED” , “REDACTED” , “REDACTED” , “REDACTED”
..couldn’t resist, tried one more:
<< 5330 • 5331 • 5332 >>
cc: Eystein Jansen , StefanRahmstorf Keith Briffa , Anders Levermann
date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 12:08:15 -0700
from: Jonathan Overpeck
subject: Re: new climate model runs
to: Fortunat Joos
How can I find the 5131 I’m looking for?
(and what’s going on with the URL’s producing different emails?)

Is 5131 something that’s pulling tree ring data together? I tried one more,
Search Results
23 Results found for “5131”
Result pages:1 | 2 | 3
11. 2561
REDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTED5131REDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTED
And got:
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=2511 appearing in the address line, but the actual email numbered:
<< 2560 • 2561 • 2562 >>
date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 14:42:18 -0700
from: Malcolm Hughes
subject: Yakutia reconstruction
to: REDACTED
Keith – please find attached to this message a text file containing
the Yakutia early summer temperature reconstruction, exactly as
shown in Figure 5 of the ‘Holocene’ manuscript. Let me know if
there are any problems, cheers, Malcolm
Professor and Director
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Tried the next:
12. 2673
…INTERVALREDACTEDYEARS MIDYEAR CORREL CORREL CORREL CORRELREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTED 1971.5 .5131REDACTEDREDACTED
And got, this gets weirder, http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=2623 comes up in the address line, but, the email is 2673:
<>
cc: Keith Briffa
date: 7 Apr 1997 17:32:32 -0600
from: Tom Wigley
subject: Data
to: Phil Jones
Dear Phil,
Thanks for your e-mail. You’ll see from my later fax that some of what you
said has been superceded. Your “Crete” and DF’s “Crete” do NOT correlate as
well as I think they should. Running correlation files are attached.
Thanks for telling me that DF’s Crete is actually his Central W Greenland
(CWG). This doesn’t resolve the puzzle, however. Your “Crete” should be made
up of the same cores, so it isn’t strictly Crete at all. Or DID you use the
same cores? Are you just trying to confuse me? (Sucessfully!) In Fisher’s
paper, CWG is made up of A, B, C, D, H, Crete 74 and Milcent (his Table 1,
cross-referenced to his Table 2). Note that this is only 7 cores (not 8 —
???). From the mean/SD Table you sent, it is clear that core 8 is Milcent,
because it is at a much lower elevation than the others (hence less negative
de1O18). What are the other 7? I suspect you may have included data from
core “G” as well as the ones used by DF. The divide must run very close to G
and H. If there is a difference between G and H, then including G could
explain why the PDJ and DF series differ. If the extra core you have used
(whether it is G or not) is long, then this means that, when you have 3 cores
(1176-1621) DF may only have 2. Most big discrepancies in terms of
correlations are earlier than 1621. I hope you can clarify this for me.
On another matter, could you please send me Trausti’s Icelandic temperature
time series, monthly values. Astrid says you have the latest version. I need
it for finalizing some analyses with Astrid’s sea ice record.
I’m copying this to Keith.
Cheers,
Tom
—–
And he’s confused??
OK, putting in 2673 direct into the address line, gives: http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=2673
Hurrah! Um, but the actual email is numbered:
<< 2722 • 2723 • 2724 >>
cc: REDACTED, Jonathan Overpeck , Stefan Rahmstorf , Anders Levermann , Eva Bauer , Eystein Jansen , REDACTED, joos
date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:20:37 -0700
from: Jonathan Overpeck
subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Millennium Simulations
to: Keith Briffa
Many thanks.
>now working on stitching all bits together (thanks Fortunat for your
>text) – and , (other than final refs which are a mess!) the 2000
>year section should come by tomorrow evening my time – still having
>to juggle University and teaching/committee crap) . Keith
>
>
🙂 Hm, that original “ReadMe” 8753 page is very strange indeed..

OK, one last one. I did a search to see if anyone else was carrying the 1982 reference, got http://icecap.us/

”
Nov 23, 2011
Climategate 2.0 – Another Nail in Kyoto’s Coffin By Marlo Lewis
..
They know the climate models are junk, but say the opposite in the IPCC reports:
..
Santer:
there is no individual model that does well in all of the SST and water vapor tests we’ve applied.

Putting that phrase into the FOIA search box: http://foia2011.org/index.php?search=+%E2%80%9CThere+is+no+individual+model+that+does+well+in+all+of+the+SST+and+water+vapor+tests+we%E2%80%99ve+applied.%E2%80%9D&id=7
gets:Search Results
There were no search results for the search ““There individual model that does well all the SST and water vapor tests we’ve applied.””. Please try using more general terms to get more results.
Putting in 1982 Santer I got:
Search
Use the form above to search the entire database
Search Results
4 Results found for “1982 Santer”
Result pages:1
1. 0331
…21) Fig 1a. What do the y-coordinates of the triangles represent, if anything? El Chichon was in 1982 I think.
2. 0347
…Even though the amplitudes are very different, the 850-300 mb temperature variations for tropics and globe parallel the Nino3 SST variations well, except following volcanic eruptions. In particular…
3. 1982
cc: Phil Jones , carl mears , Karl Taylor , Tom Wigley , Tom Wigley , “Thorne, Peter” , Steven Sherwood , John Lanzante , Melissa Free , Frank Wentz , Steve Klein , Leopold Haimberger , peter gleckler…
4. README.TXT
…We should keep in mind that the climate system is complex, so that it is difficult, if not impossible to define a metric that captures the breath of physical processes relevant to even a narrow area…
Result pages:1
..Clicking on 1982 got me, 1982
<< 1981 • 1982 • 1983 >>
cc: Phil Jones , carl mears , Karl Taylor , Tom Wigley , Tom Wigley , “Thorne, Peter” , Steven Sherwood , John Lanzante , Melissa Free , Frank Wentz , Steve Klein , Leopold Haimberger , peter gleckler
date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:48:26 -0800
from: Ben Santer
subject: Re: [Fwd: sorry to take your time up, but really do need a scrub
to: Dian Seidel
“Dear Dian,
Thanks very much for your email. I agree that the problem of
partitioning a multi-model ensemble into groups that are “more reliable”
and “less reliable” for some specific application is a difficult one.”
BUT, the URL in the address box came up: http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=1932
And there is nothing in the email about Shukla and the IPCC 1998.
Sigh. 1982 in address line still goes to 2032
2032 goes to 2082
2082 goes to 2132 which is blank after this:
<< 2131 • 2132 • 2133 >>
cc: Urs Neu , Mike MacCracken , Martin Hoffert , Karl Taylor , Ken Caldiera , Curt Covey , “Michael E. Mann” , Raymond Bradley , Malcolm Hughes , Phil Jones , Kevin Trenberth , Tom Crowley , Scott Rutherford , Caspar Ammann , Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn , Michael Oppenheimer , Steve Schneider , Gabi Hegerl , Ellen Mosley-Thompson , Eric Steig , REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, J
2132 goes to 2182 – which is one I do recognise, the touting for funders. So how is the URL http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=2132? Which goes to, etc..
The 4. ReadMe on the 1982 Santer takes back to the same, I think, I haven’t checked properly, ReadMe file I found on the first random number I put in – http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=1
where the 1982 also appears, so the other pages I searched have simply put in the Shukla from that page.
“There is no individual model that does well in all of the SST and water vapor tests we’ve applied.”
Putting in a search on the FOIA box for the phrase from 4131: “It is inconceivable that policymakers”
http://foia2011.org/index.php?search=It+is+inconceivable+that+policymakers+&id=7
Gets:

Search
Use the form above to search the entire database
Search Results
5 Results found for “inconceivable that policymakers”
Result pages:1
1. 0533
cc: Jerry Meehl , Timothy Carter , REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED…
2. 096704180
From: Stephen H Schneider To: REDACTED Subject: Re: THC collapse Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:43:29 -0700 (PDT) Cc: Thomas Stocker , Jerry Meehl , Timothy Carter , REDACTED…
3. 120293919
From: J Shukla To: IPCC-Sec Subject: Future of the IPCC: Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:46:33 -0500 Cc: REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED…
4. 3367
cc: Thomas Stocker , Jerry Meehl , Timothy Carter , REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED…
5. README.TXT
UPDATE : We have added the 2009 email release to the database. This website is provided as a research resource for mining the recently leaked climate communications. Every effort has been made to redact…
Result pages:1

The third Shukla at last! Still the numbers don’t go where you think – http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=6160
<>
From: J Shukla
To: IPCC-Sec
Subject: Future of the IPCC:
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:46:33 -0500
Cc: REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, Rupa Kumar Kolli , REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED
Dear All,
I would like to respond to some of the items in the attached text on
issues etc. in particular to the statement in the section 3.1.1
(sections 3: Drivers of required change in the future).
“There is now greater demand for a higher level of policy relevance in
the work of IPCC, which could provide policymakers a robust scientific
basis for action”.
1. While it is true that a vast majority of the public and the
policymakers have accepted the reality of human influence on climate
change (in fact many of us were arguing for stronger language with a
higher level of confidence at the last meetings of the LAs), how
confident are we about the projected regional climate changes?
I would like to submit that the current climate models have such large
errors in simulating the statistics of regional (climate) that we are
not ready to provide policymakers a robust scientific basis for “action”
at regional scale. I am not referring to mitigation, I am strictly
referring to science based adaptation.
For example, we can not advise the policymakers about re-building the
city of New Orleans – or more generally about the habitability of the
Gulf-Coast – using climate models which have serious deficiencies in
simulating the strength, frequency and tracks of hurricanes.
We will serve society better by enhancing our efforts on improving our
models so that they can simulate the statistics of regional climate
fluctuations; for example: tropical (monsoon depressions, easterly
waves, hurricanes, typhoons, Madden-Julian oscillations) and
extratropical (storms, blocking) systems in the atmosphere; tropical
instability waves, energetic eddies, upwelling zones in the oceans;
floods and droughts on the land; and various manifestations (ENSO,
monsoons, decadal variations, etc.) of the coupled ocean-land-atmosphere
processes.
It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make
billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected
regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and
simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate
variability. Of course, even a hypothetical, perfect model does not
guarantee accurate prediction of the future regional climate, but at the
very least, our suggestion for action will be based on the best possible
science.
It is urgently required that the climate modeling community arrive at a
consensus on the required accuracy of the climate models to meet the
“greater demand for a higher level of policy relevance”.
2. Is “model democracy” a valid scientific method? The “I” in the IPCC
desires that all models submitted by all governments be considered
equally probable. This should be thoroughly discussed, because it may
have serious implications for regional adaptation strategies. AR4 has
shown that model fidelity and model sensitivity are related. The models
used for IPCC assessments should be evaluated using a consensus metric.
3. Does dynamical downscaling for regional climate change provide a
robust scientific basis for action?
Is there a consensus in the climate modeling community on the validity
of regional climate prediction by dynamical downscaling? A large number
of dynamical downscaling efforts are underway worldwide. This is not
necessarily because it is meaningful to do it, but simply because it is
possible to do it. It is not without precedent that quite deficient
climate models are used by large communities simply because it is
convenient to use them. It is self-evident that if a coarse resolution
IPCC model does not correctly capture the large-scale mean and transient
response, a high-resolution regional model, forced by the lateral
boundary conditions from the coarse model, can not improve the response.
Considering the important role of multi-scale interactions and feedbacks
in the climate system, it is essential that the IPCC-class global models
themselves be run at sufficiently high resolution.
Regards,
Shukla
REDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTED
IPCC-Sec wrote:
> Dear LAs & CLAs,
>
> Please find attached a letter and issues related to the future of the
> IPCC.
>
> With kind regards,
>
> Annie
>
> IPCC Secretariat
> WMO
> 7bis, Avenue de la Paix
> P.O. Box 2300
> 1211 Geneva 2
> SWITZERLAND
> Tel:REDACTED/8254/8284
> Fax:REDACTED/8013
> Email: REDACTED
> Website: http://www.ipcc.ch
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
>
>
Found at last!
Though I still haven’t the faintest idea what’s going on here.

REGARDED is the key:
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=+regarded

And keyword REDACTED brings us
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1241415427.txt&search=REDACTED
“CLIMATE SCIENCE FRAUD AT ALBANY UNIVERSITY?
——————————————-
The University at Albany is in a difficult position. If the University received such records as part of the supposed misconduct investigation, then they could easily resolve the problem by making them available to the scientific community and to readers. If the University does not have such records then they have been complicit in misconduct and in coverup of misconduct. If the University at Albany does have such records, but such records are not in accordance with the stated methodology of the publications, then the University has more serious difficulties.
“Investigations” of scientific misconduct should themselves align with the usual principles of scientific discourse (open discussion, honesty, transparency of method, public disclosure of evidence, open public analysis and public discussion and reasoning underlying any conclusion). This was not the case at the University at Albany. When you see universities reluctant to investigate things properly, it provides reasonable evidence that they really don’t want to investigate things properly.
— Aubrey Blumsohn, Scientific Misconduct Blog, 2 May 2009″
——————————————-
And so on ——————————————- proceeds bringing us
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=+——————————————-
Thu, 11 Jul 1996 1:07:13 pm
0837094033.txt-> NR4 7TJ
0837094033.txt-> UK
0837094033.txt:> —————————————————————————-
0837094033.txt->
0837094033.txt->
—
Fri, 25 Oct 1996 1:21:41 pm
1953.txt-> NR4 7TJ
1953.txt-> UK
1953.txt:> —————————————————————————-
1953.txt->
1953.txt-
—
Wed, 4 Dec 1996 10:57:11 am
4654.txt-> NR4 7TJ
4654.txt-> UK
4654.txt:> —————————————————————————-
4654.txt->
4654.txt->
—
Wed, 14 May 1997 7:55:49 am
3724.txt-> changes in the mix of frontal and convective precipitation.
3724.txt->
3724.txt:> —————————————————————————-=
3724.txt-> –
3724.txt-> Dr Mike Hulme tel: +44 ???
—
Mon, 7 Jul 1997 11:39:41 am
2803.txt->
2803.txt->
2803.txt:> —————————————————————————–
2803.txt-> Dr Mike Hulme tel: +44 ???
2803.txt-> Climatic Research Unit fax: +44 ???
—
Tue, 4 Nov 1997 6:02:54 pm
4428.txt->
4428.txt->
4428.txt:> —————————————————————————–
4428.txt-> Dr Mike Hulme tel: +44 ???
4428.txt-> Climatic Research Unit fax: +44 ???
—
Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:34:56 pm
4300.txt-> >Cheers,
4300.txt-> >Tom
4300.txt:> —————————————————————————–
4300.txt-> Dr Mike Hulme tel: +44 ???
4300.txt-> Climatic Research Unit fax: +44 ???
—
Mon, 8 Jun 1998 11:57:54 pm
N tiis is second stage of subdirectories:
Thu, 11 Jul 1996 1:07:13 pm
0837094033.txt-> NR4 7TJ
0837094033.txt-> UK
0837094033.txt:> —————————————————————————-
0837094033.txt->
0837094033.txt->
—
Fri, 25 Oct 1996 1:21:41 pm
1953.txt-> NR4 7TJ
1953.txt-> UK
1953.txt:> —————————————————————————-
1953.txt->
1953.txt-
—
Wed, 4 Dec 1996 10:57:11 am
4654.txt-> NR4 7TJ
4654.txt-> UK
4654.txt:> —————————————————————————-
4654.txt->
4654.txt->
AND
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=+——————————————-
Brings as DOS command CD .// DIR
Why do you not see it.

FOIA File structure seen as DOS file structure.
SUB Directory REDACTED.
CD/ redacted
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=REDACTED
DIR
—
Thu, 9 Oct 2008 6:56:17 am
0058.txt- Ralf
0058.txt-
0058.txt:[[[redacted: reference]]]
0058.txt-
0058.txt- Finally, might I ask that you note and then erase this email. I have found that recent
—
OPEN 0058.txt-
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0058.txt&search=REDACTED
“
date: Thu Oct 9 17:56:17 2008
from: Keith Briffa
subject: Re: Tom Giverin – IN STRICT CONFIDENCE
to: “Toumi, Ralf”
Ralf
[[[redacted: reference]]]
Finally, might I ask that you note and then erase this email. I have found that recent
enquiries under the Freedom of Information Act, or Data Protection Act, can become
considerable time sinks , or the basis of some inconvenient subsequent distractions.
with best wishes
Keith
At 12:38 09/10/2008, you wrote:
Dear Keith,
Tom has applied to do a PhD with me (probably mesoscale modelling). Could you please
give me a reference for him. In particular I would be interested to know if you would
take him in your group (and why you think he is still available; which is good for
me…, but I always worry at this time of year).
Best wishes,
Ralf
Professor Ralf Toumi
Department of Physics
Imperial College
London SW7 2AZ
UK
Rm. H713 (Huxley Building)
Telephone: + 44 (0) ???
Fax: + 44 (0) ???
email: [1]???@imperial.ac.uk
Web: [2]http://www.sp.ph.ic.ac.uk/~rtoumi/
—
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +4 ???-1603-593909
Fax: +4 ???-1603-507784
[3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Open — it is also a filename, + = space key seen on FOIA Grepper.
DIR
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=+–
“### CANNOT PARSE DATE ###
0876437553.txt-Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.
0876437553.txt-
0876437553.txt:I would like to weigh in on two important questions —
0876437553.txt-“
0876437553.txt:I would like to weigh in on two important questions —
0876437553 = UNIX time stamp
Open 0876437553.txt
“From: Joseph Alcamo
To: ???@uea.ac.uk, ???@rivm.nl
Subject: Timing, Distribution of the Statement
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:33 0100
Reply-to: ???@usf.uni-kassel.de
Mike, Rob,
Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.
I would like to weigh in on two important questions —
Distribution for Endorsements —
I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as
possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is
numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500
signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000
without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
different story.
Conclusion — Forget the screening, forget asking
them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those
names!
Timing — I feel strongly that the week of 24 November is too late.
1. We wanted to announce the Statement in the period when there was
a sag in related news, but in the week before Kyoto we should expect
that we will have to crowd out many other articles about climate.
2. If the Statement comes out just a few days before Kyoto I am
afraid that the delegates who we want to influence will not have any
time to pay attention to it. We should give them a few weeks to hear
about it.
3. If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have
it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread
the word about the Statement. On the other hand, it wouldn’t be so
bad to release the Statement in the same week, but on a
diffeent day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from two
very different directions.
Conclusion — I suggest the week of 10 November, or the week of 17
November at the latest.
Mike — I have no organized email list that could begin to compete
with the list you can get from the Dutch. But I am still
willing to send you what I have, if you wish.
Best wishes,
Joe Alcamo
—————————————————-
Prof. Dr. Joseph Alcamo, Director
Center for Environmental Systems Research
University of Kassel
Kurt Wolters Strasse 3
D-34109 Kassel
Germany”
There is still filename —————————————————-
DIR
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=+—————————————————-
Thu, 11 Jul 1996 1:07:13 pm
0837094033.txt-> NR4 7TJ
0837094033.txt-> UK
0837094033.txt:> —————————————————————————-
0837094033.txt->
0837094033.txt->
—
Open
0837094033.txt:> —————————————————————————-
“From: Alan Robock
To: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: your mail
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 10:07:13 -0400 (EDT)
Dear Phil,
It looks like you have found Baitoushan. Vol. 2 lists Kuwae as VEI 6 in
1452 +/- 10 AD. How accurate are your dates? By the way, Chris Newhall
thinks 1600 is the Parker volcano on Mindanao in the Philippines. He
hasn’t published that so far, as I know.
Could you please define “utter prat” for me? Sometimes I think we speak
the same language, and sometimes I’m not so sure.
I’m doing fine. We have a new building with nice new offices. I’m going
to Australia next week with Sherri and Danny, and after the meeting, will
visit Cairns, Adelaide, and New Zealand. I’m looking forward to skiing
on a volcano, if it stops erupting.
Alan
Prof. Alan Robock Phone: (301)???
Department of Meteorology Fax: (301)???
University of Maryland Email: ???@atmos.umd.edu
College Park, MD 20742 http://www.meto.umd.edu/~alan
On Thu, 11 Jul 1996, Phil Jones wrote:
> Alan,
> Thanks for the quick response. We’ll expect something from Melissa
> in the next few weeks. I also hope our copy of the 2cnd edition arrives
> soon. In our maximum latewood density reconstruction from the polar Urals
> to AD 914, the most anomalous summer is AD 1032. A lot of other volcano
> years are there with summers of -3 to -4 sigma such as 1816,1601,1783 and
> 1453 (I think this later one is Kuwae that is being found in the Ice Cores
> in the Antarctic. However 1032 is 6 sigma and it may be the Baitoushan
> event which you say is 1010 +/- 50 years or the Billy Mitchell event.
>
> I hope all’s well with you.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
> PS Britain seems to have found it’s Pat Michaels/Fred Singer/Bob Balling/
> Dick Lindzen. Our population is only 25 % of yours so we only get 1 for
> every 4 you have. His name in case you should come across him is
> Piers Corbyn. He is nowhere near as good as a couple of yours and he’s
> an utter prat but he’s getting a lot of air time at the moment. For his
> day job he teaches physics and astronomy at a University and he predicts
> the weather from solar phenomena. He bets on his predictions months
> ahead for what will happen in Britain. He now believes he knows all
> there is to know about the global warming issue. He’s not all bad as
> he doesn’t have much confidence in nuclear-power safety. Always says
> that at the begining of his interviews to show he’s not all bad !
>
> Cheers Again
>
> Phil
> Dr Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 ???
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 ???
> Norwich Email ???@uea.ac.uk
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> —————————————————————————-
>
>”
This is an example file path, and seems to be endless.
I think that the master file is still in CRU computer systems,
so we have to sort files like I did.
Ilkka.

Simple model as a policy tool
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0803.txt&search=+—————————————————-