And to think I almost wasted my time going to visit Dr. Trenberth at NCAR this fall. This is mind blowing intolerance in professional discourse. Here’s the email, bold mine.
email 3946
date: Thu Dec 9 08:28:11 2004
from: Phil Jones <REDACTED>
subject: Re: Correspondence with Chris Landsea
to: REDACTED
Kevin,
So you’ve heard. The other email may explain more and/or give details.
We will have to do without him. We still need to get a diagram, but we should
probably let this die down now.
Susan and Martin (and you can see the others) got the earlier email (which
you now have – if you’ve not got it from elsewhere). Keep me infomed.
By the way, still nothing from the Japanese contact, despite 2 reminders at
least. I’ll send an email to the first Japanese I contacted.
Cheers
Phil
At 02:24 09/12/2004, you wrote:
Martin
I have not seen any of this. I just heard today at the NCAR Xmas party from
Tim Killeen that this existed. So I feel blindsided. I understand he has
resigned from CA of our chapter.
I responded to his earlier message in a fairly low key fashion. I think he
has behaved irresponsibly and ought to be fired by NOAA for not have an open enough mind to even consider that climate change might be affecting
hurricanes. I am quickly becoming outraged by this and I hope it backfires on
him!!!!
Kevin
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Martin Manning wrote:
> Dear Phil and Kevin
>
> Today Susan received a copy of some correspondence between Chris Landsea and Dr Pachauri regarding coverage of hurricanes and global warming by the IPCC. Although we were aware that Dr Landsea was raising the issue
> generally, we were not aware of the approach to Dr Pachauri and it is
> perhaps unfortunate that this was not referred to Susan.
>
> However, Susan would now like to consider a further appropriate response to
> Dr Landsea and she has asked me to ask you to wait for that before you
> consider any possible response of your own (assuming that you have seen the
> correspondence anyway?).
>
> Thanks
> Martin
>
> —
> Dr Martin R Manning
> *** NEW EMAIL ADDRESS: REDACTED
> Director, IPCC WG I Support UnitREDACTEDPhone:REDACTED
> NOAA Aeronomy LaboratoryREDACTED Fax:REDACTED/ 5628
> 325 Broadway, DSRC R/AL8
> Boulder, CO 80305, USA
REDACTED—
Kevin E. TrenberthREDACTED e-mail: REDACTED
Climate Analysis Section, NCARREDACTED[1]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000,REDACTEDREDACTED(303) 497 1318
Boulder, COREDACTEDREDACTED(303)REDACTED(fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303
*******************************
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0)REDACTED
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0)REDACTED
University of East Anglia
NorwichREDACTED Email REDACTED
NR4 7TJ
UK
REDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTED——–
============================================================
And for the record Dr. Trenberth, there appears to be no correlation between huricane frequency or hurricane intensity with global warming.
Global tropical cyclone activity, as measured by frequency and ACE is still at the lowest in 30 years, despite 2010 being claimed as the warmest year ever:
date: Thu Dec 9 08:28:11 2004
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Re: Correspondence with Chris Landsea
to: trenbert@ucar.edu
Kevin,
So you've heard. The other email may explain more and/or give details.
We will have to do without him. We still need to get a diagram, but we should
probably let this die down now.
Susan and Martin (and you can see the others) got the earlier email (which
you now have - if you've not got it from elsewhere). Keep me infomed.
By the way, still nothing from the Japanese contact, despite 2 reminders at
least. I'll send an email to the first Japanese I contacted.
Cheers
Phil
At 02:24 09/12/2004, you wrote:
Martin
I have not seen any of this. I just heard today at the NCAR Xmas party from
Tim Killeen that this existed. So I feel blindsided. I understand he has
resigned from CA of our chapter.
I responded to his earlier message in a fairly low key fashion. I think he
has behaved irresponsibly and ought to be fired by NOAA for not have an open
enough mind to even consider that climate change might be affecting
hurricanes. I am quickly becoming outraged by this and I hope it backfires on
him!!!!
Kevin
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Martin Manning wrote:
> Dear Phil and Kevin
>
> Today Susan received a copy of some correspondence between Chris Landsea
> and Dr Pachauri regarding coverage of hurricanes and global warming by the
> IPCC. Although we were aware that Dr Landsea was raising the issue
> generally, we were not aware of the approach to Dr Pachauri and it is
> perhaps unfortunate that this was not referred to Susan.
>
> However, Susan would now like to consider a further appropriate response to
> Dr Landsea and she has asked me to ask you to wait for that before you
> consider any possible response of your own (assuming that you have seen the
> correspondence anyway?).
>
> Thanks
> Martin
>
> --
> Dr Martin R Manning
> *** NEW EMAIL ADDRESS: <REDACTED>@noaa.gov
> Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit Phone: <REDACTED>
> NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory Fax: <REDACTED>
> 325 Broadway, DSRC R/AL8
> Boulder, CO 80305, USA
---------------
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: <REDACTED>@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR [1]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000, Phone: <REDACTED>
Boulder, CO 80307 Fax: <REDACTED>
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303
*******************************
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone <REDACTED>
School of Environmental Sciences Fax <REDACTED>
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email <REDACTED>@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Landsea is a hero for not allowing his integrity be undermined. Briffa could have taken this path but was not as strong in character.
Both scientists are brilliant, iconic and mirror images of each other.
I just wish the strong ones made more money. If that were the case there would be more of them.
Call me dense but the lyrics to that song, which I had to look up because I couldn’t tell what he was saying, reminds me of parsley, sage, rosemary and thyme. I am in my dodderhood and can’t figure out the message for all the tea in China deary.
Maybe he wanted actual evidence? When theory meets the real world, are we supposed to just discard facts that don’t fit the theory?
Treberth seems to think so.
Wont´you spread this ?
NR4 7TJ ,seems to be very important.
Search:
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=NR4+7TJ
Some kind of Hitler Jugend is on the way.
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=NR4+7TJ
I’ve come across about 5 different spellings of Trenberth in this thread, including the headlines spelling of ‘Treberth’ 🙂
Lucy Skywalker says:
December 2, 2011 at 2:06 am
Re-reading my own words and links (above!) makes me wonder, since people shout when they feel insecure, is there actually serious reason to doubt Trenberth’s magnum opus, the famous radiative transfers diagram?
___________________________________
Yes that diagram is a real doozy. He starts with 342 W m-2 at the top of that atmosphere and ends up with 168 absorbed at ground level and 30 W m-2 reflected for a grand total of 198 W m-2. Real life measurements make him look like the Donkey’s rear he actually is. Heck Oslo Norway receives 2.27 kWh/m 2/day as a yearly average.
Trenberth’s cartoon: http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/images/earth_rad_budget_kiehl_trenberth_1997_big.gif
My snarky comment on the cartoon with links to a solar panel website with measurements by NASA. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/28/senior-ncar-scientist-admits-quantifying-climate-sensitivity-from-real-world-data-cannot-even-be-done-using-present-day-data/#comment-812522
* Oslo , Norway = 2.27 kWh/m 2/day (very low)
* Miami , Florida = 5.26 kWh/m 2/day (very high)
http://www.solarpanelsplus.com/solar-insolation-levels/
Las Vegas has a yearly avg of 5.3 kWh/m 2/day and a monthly high of 7.69 kWh/m 2/day in June. Phoenix a high of 7.7 kWh/m 2/day.
If Trenberth was correct the planet would be frozen solid!
Black body radiation, as i´see it, is marwelous, ad so simple that yuo cannot imagine
SB law, because it is part of myself, too near, and i´cant understand it?
But i´m not alone.
Maybe we shall discuss later of it, Claes Johnson vision is like same as me?
Ilkka.
“I think he (Trenberth) has behaved irresponsibly and ought to be fired by NCAR for not have an open enough mind to even consider that climate change might NOT be affecting hurricanes.”
Maybe that is trenbeth, be carefull, it´s active HTML code.
Must change to ascii or put it to HTML editor to see what has he eaten.
It must be US ascii before outting it to FOIA ripper.
***********************************************
of the model relative to obsevations
thanks
John
>
> –=====================_??? ==_
> Content-type: text/plain; charset=”us-ascii”
Ilkka.
Just to emphasize, Landsea with his scientific and intellectual INTEGRITY would not roll over for Trenberth’s b.s. and so had to be re-defined as an enemy of “The Team” — CG1 and CG2 emails show very clearly how they operate!
Landsea (quoted above):
“I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.”
quoted above:
Ric Werme says:
December 2, 2011 at 5:34 am
> date: Thu Dec 9 08:28:11 2004
ian middleton says:
December 2, 2011 at 3:04 am
What’s with this “Chapter” stuff, it’s beginig to sound like the Free Masons. Do they have a secret handshake?
_________________________________
The IPCC report is arranged in “Chapters”. They are talking about the stuff they will “Allow” in a chapter of the report going to world governments and what scientific information will be “BANNED” from the report.
Btw Anthony,
Isn’t hurricane season over? Are you going to do a follow up on how predictions went this year?
“And every peer review panel should include unencumbered statisticians whose job is to screen out papers that cannot be supported statistically. ”
Unfortunately that is what they are using in Oz to remove dissenting papers. The problem with all statistics is the problem of “priors”. If your initial assumptions are wrong about the nature of your sample, your conclusions are wrong, but they appear statistically correct.
For example, if you assume that climate is a coin toss, then temperature should average out over time, and if it doesn’t then it must be changing due to human activity.
However, if temperature is a more typical time series (non-gaussian), then temperatures will not average out in the long tern, and cannot be predicted with any more skill than can the stock market.
The assumption most people make is that climate behaves like a coin toss and will average out over time, because that is what common sense tells us. This leads to the gambler’s fallacy. When you toss a coin and it lands heads, you bet the next toss will be tails because heads and tails must even out.
Yet in the real world things don’t work that way. A hot day today is more likely to be followed by a hot day tomorrow. If the stock market goes down today, it is not more likely to go up tomorrow. It is the naive application of statistics that underlies much of the poor quality of climate science.
There is an article on the front page of the WSJ today regarding scientists failure to reproduce studies. The article is about pharmaceutical research but you can plug in Climate very easily. The pressure to publish to keep the grant funds coming is now a cancer that could set trust of the profession back decades.
Gail Combs says:
December 2, 2011 at 7:05 am
If Trenberth was correct the planet would be frozen solid!
If you look at Trenberth’s diagram you will notice a very curious effect. A percentage of Incoming solar radiation is reflected by the surface, however 100% of back radiation is absorbed.
It is physically impossible that 100% of back radiation be absorbed by a surface that is partially reflective to solar radiation.
This in itself is proof that Trenberth’s diagram is not correct. The back radiation must be reflected to some degree, yet this is not accounted for in the diagram. Clearly this is the missing heat Trenberth cannot account for.
ferd berple says: “A hot day today is more likely to be followed by a hot day tomorrow”
Yes, autocorrelation isn’t found in coin tosses.
But if there is no problem they might lose their job to study ‘it’. They have families with little children who need to buy new clothes for school. The deniers want those children to go to school in rags and not have enough to eat! So you see, there HAS TO BE a ‘problem’, – for the children!
“… and ought to be fired by NOAA.”
Can’t help but wonder if the Global Warming weasels would be so bold as to call for people’s firings, if they were standing face to face with them?
This part is alluded to in the trailer of the new movie:
Sarc/on
I’ve heard it said that if all the fossil fuel on earth was burned, the CO2 trace gas volume would amount to a Fart in a Hurricane. So, it I think Hurricane’s would be affected and he should be fired at NOAA!!
Ferd – the spectrums you are comparing (incoming solar and back radiated IR) are very different. The down welling IR does, though, produce up welling IR, unavoidably. This effect is seen in a fireplace where two logs are burning. The hottest part of the logs are those areas facing each other owing to mutual IR heating. The Trenberth diagram is misleading. But that’s our Kevie.
I hope this is not OT since I wish to address the broader topic of groupthink and dissent among climate scientists…..
There is a post over on Bishop Hill from Alan Kendall of UEA defending his university generally and his CRU colleagues as not so intolerant as being portrayed (although he does not get into any details about the course lectures that so upset Phil Jones etc.):
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/12/2/on-monoliths.html?currentPage=3#comments
My impression is of a well meaning guy who is simply showing a general loyalty to his colleagues (even the ones who deserve nothing of the sort, arguably). Perhaps those who follow these issues more closely than I have to date will have something interesting to say about Kendall’s situation … which as I understand it was not about a specific paper or program of research, but more about teaching a couple of lectures on the “dissenting position” with slides from Climate Audit, according to the vociferous Phil Jones email on the matter.
So far Kendall has made at least two comments today that I have seen at Bishop Hill, so there might even be a possibility of engaging him there with some respectful questions and comments.
[snip. Enough music videos! ~dbs, mod.]
Defeating their theory defeats their goals.
Climate change theory is not the sudden and irreversible out of control climate but actually represents sudden and irreversible out of control taxes and regulations. How research is used by politicians to make decisions should be charted but that may not be relevant here.
ESTRELLA
European project for Standardised Transparent Representations in
order to Extend Legal Accessibility
Theories in chapter 4 caught my eye and while not relevant here it is out of context.
By ‘theory’ we mean here simply a set of propositions. The theory need not be
about anything or be consistent or coherent or have any other desirable properties.
The theory is completed using a finite set of inference rules, which can be applied to the axioms and, recursively, the consequences of these rules, to derive the remaining propositions of the theory.
In summary, legal reasoning in general is an argumentation process in which theories and proofs are constructed in dialogs. Legal reasoning cannot be reduced to a mechanical, deductive application of rules to facts.
Rules can be defeated in two ways by challenging their validity or by showing that some exclusionary conditions apply.
I am sure this makes perfect sense to the legal profession. Consider that most legislators are lawyers.
About the article: Suppressing opposition is no different than hiding the truth.
Keep in mind, your reading what they thought at the time where private e-mails.
Consider what they said and did when in private speaking/acting out with and to one another.
You know just the team in a huddle.
@ur momisugly Ric Werme: RE
December 2, 2011 at 5:34 am
Ric, thanks for the link to Chris Landsea’s entire resignation letter and the back story. His symbolic resignation draws stark attention, once again, to the irony of the IPCC’s title, which is so different from it’s mission statement.
(From the Landsea letter)
Stuck with misleading and ever so bor-r-r-ing “International Panel on Climate Change” moniker must be a constant vexation to the spirits of the delinquent teens heading up the panel.
Lord Monckton’s version should really become standard usage: IPECAC.
As for Mr. Landsea, I wonder if he kept his job at NOAA, despite Trenberth’s “outrage”.
@Bill Parsons Dr. Landsea was hired as the Science and Operations Officer at the NHC shortly afterwards and has retained that position to today. Seems the group responsible for predicting storms and saving lives and property had a bit more respect for his expertise.
[MODERATOR’S NOTE: Scott, site policy requires a valid e-mail address. Please comply. -REP]
Ilkka, thanks for pointer. It does appear Susan Soloman was the hatchet person. Not at all surprising. Wouldn’t it be interesting to get a copy of her emails for the past 15 years.
Bill Parsons says:
December 2, 2011 at 9:32 am
……..Lord Monckton’s version should really become standard usage: IPECAC………
______________________–
I just got it. LOL
Syrup of ipecac
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Syrup of ipecac ( /ˈɪpɨkæk/), commonly referred to as ipecac, is derived from the dried rhizome and roots of the ipecacuanha plant, and is a well known emetic (substance used to induce vomiting).
Must find strage pharses an feed them to FOIA ripper.
Maybe first letter must be space.
Part of targets are hidden as x@yahoo.com, kolumbus etc.
But from lower lewel to upper, as Watergate scandal reporters.
Easier way to get closer to this puzzle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography