After years of trying to suppress their release, and finally being ordered to be released by a judge, they are now public, and we have them here. This will remain as a “top post” for a day, new stories will be below this one.
There’s quite a treasure trove, but also some duplications from previous releases.
First a look at the release letter from University of Arizona:
The files released cover emails from Michael Mann to Malcolm Hughes, Eugene Wahl, Caspar Amman, Ray Bradley, and Jonathan Overpeck. Plus there were additional requests for anything out of UEA (Phil Jones at CRU).
The FOIA request goes all the way back to December of 2011, it’s taken this long to get released. Mann fought the release all the way.
Here is a sample, where Keith Briffa of CRU says that Mann’s data (and others) do in fact show a Medieval Warm Period.
There’s further arguments from Keith Briffa about Mann’s data, along with Mann claiming that the “screening” process to decide whether or not to include certain proxy data is actually a good thing. There was some blowback a few years ago when it was discovered that Mann’s pre-screening really skewed the results in his favor….yet in these email exchanges, he thinks the process is “objective”:
Here’s Mann responding to the publication of the McIntyre and McKittrick paper in E&E:
There’s quite a bit to wade through, and some emails are duplicated from the original Climategate release.
I invite readers to read and review these documents, and to point out any items of interest in comments.
Here are the documents, available for download:
Chris Horner, Government Accountability Oversight – Response Close 2-27-19 (00115527xC3E11)
E E matter. Exemplar Records Release Privilege Log (00115528xC3E11)
ATI-U-of-A-Hughes-Overpeck-FOI-Request
E E – Overpeck. Log of Responsive Nonresponsive Records (00114879xC3E11)
E E. Overpeck email records released to E E 2-5-19 per court order (00114885xC3E11)
Malcolm Hughes – Log of Redactions Peer Review Withholding (00115522xC3E11)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
All proxies are at high risk of having an unknown or rejected but equally possible confounding factor. Autism was for decades considered to be caused by the environment, IE parenting issue, or even abusive cause. It came to be known as the “cold mothering syndrome”. This due to the fact that eyes on the ground are not a part of proxies. We extrapolate the cause because we were not actually there.
Current theories surrounding anthropogenic warming is at high risk of having a confounding factor because past warming of any kind is thought to be the result of increasing CO2. However, CO2 and warming may have increased in the past because of a confounding factor that increased both.
So too Autism. Mothers learned how to decrease social stress on their children with autism by not forcing interaction, leading to the misnamed “cold mothering” description. We now understand both mother and child interactions are caused by a genetic syndrome. What is instructive is that many successful methods used today are successful because someone finally listened to mothers and learned how to better interact with these children.
It’s axiomatic that cause precedes effect. In the case of CO2, it ought to be obvious that when an increase in temperature leads an increase in CO2, it is the temperature that is the cause of increasing CO2 and not the other way around. Then, one must search for why temperature changed in the first case.
Yes you would think that someone employing LOGIC, certainly any self-styled “scientist,” would “get” that.
You would ALSO think they would, after seeing CO2 FOLLOWING temperature with a time lag of about 800 years, do the arithmetic and realize that part of the cause of current rising CO2 levels has to do with the time-lagged ocean heat content from…the MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD causing additional CO2 to be emitted into the atmosphere.
lag isnt 800.
They say it is; http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
What is it then given it suggests to me that you something that refutes any evidence we have to date? You must be busy, again!
That’s a terrible analogy.
Reading your comment was like hearing a female comedian. Irrelevant, boring, and out of place comments about something female.
I’m trying to get my arms around what this group believes regarding the MWP. I didn’t see anyone who denied the existence of the MWP. Do any of them disavow the validity of Mann’s hokey stick graph, which fails to show a MWP?
>Of course, Chap 6 had a nice box on the MWP – it’s in the literature
>and thus of course is not something that simply goes away, despite
>what these guys think we’re saying.
Phil:
I’ve also seen the quote about getting rid of the MWP – it would
>> seem to go
>> back many years, maybe even to around the TAR. I’ve no idea where it came
>> from. I didn’t say it!
Overpeck:
I googled “We have to get rid of the warm medieval
>>>> period” and “Overpeck” and indeed, there is a
>>>> person David Deeming that attributes the quote to
>>>> an email from me. He apparently did mention the
>>>> quote (but I don’t think me) in a Senate hearing.
I have no memory of emailing w/ him, nor any
>>>> record of doing so (I need to do an exhaustive
>>>> search I guess), nor any memory of him period. I
>>>> assume it is possible that I emailed w/ him long
>>> > ago, and that he’s taking the quote out of
>>>> context, since know I would never have said what
>>>> he’s saying I would have, at least in the context
>>>> he is implying.
>>>>
>>>> Any idea what my reaction should be? I usually
>>>> ignore this kind of misinformation, but I can
>>>> imagine that it could take on a life of it’s own
>>>> and that I might want to deal with it now, rather
>>>> than later. I could – as the person below
>>>> suggests – make a quick statement on a web site
>>>> that the attribution to me is false, but I
>>>> suspect that this Deeming guy could then produce
>>>> a fake email. I would then say it’s fake. Or just
>>>> ignore? Or something else?
>>>> His “news” (often with attribution to me) appears
>>>> to be getting widespread coverage on the
>>>> internet. It is upsetting.
>>>>>Dear Dr Overpeck,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I recall David Deeming giving evidence to a
>>>>>Senate hearing to the effect that he had
>>>>>received an email including a remark to the
>>>>>effect “We have to get rid of the warm medieval
>>>>>period”. I have now seen several comment web
>>>>>pages attribute the email to your. Some serious
>>>>>and well moderated pages like
>>>>>ukweatherworld would welcome a post from you if
>>>>>the attribution is untrue and would, I feel
>>>>>sure, remove it if you were to ask them to. I am
>>>>>sure that many other blogs would report your
>>>>>denial. Is there any reason you have not issued
>>>>>a denial?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>David Holland
Maybe he found the email or his recollection changed and he re-remembered.
Overpeck wouldn’t have sent such an email to David Deeming. He’d have sent it to someone he’d been working with.
“Dear All,
I’ve done no more on this, but am hopeful next week of
adding in the text I have from Janice and Juerg. The only
other contact I’ve had is with Sandy and Gene (and Christoph
before he left). I’ve also talked to Francis.
Can we make some progress on this soon? Juerg did
his bit whilst his wife Elena was successfully having their second
child, so I expect a few more of you to show such commitment
to the cause !
Cheers
Phil”
JTO-036364
Phil asks for commitment to the cause.
How science works. “…you all know the rules of the game.”
You have to keep the sponsors’ lenders happy.
JTO-036610
From: Thorsten Kiefer
Subject: Re: Past Millennia Climate Variability – Review Paper – reminder
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 12:10:19 +0200
To: Phil Jones
…
>tomorrow will be the one-year
anniversary of the PAGES/CLIVAR & EPRI workshop in Wengen, which as we
were assured repeatedly from many of you, was very enjoyable and fruitful. As
pleasant as it was to get enthusiastic feedback, in the long term it will not
suffice to feed the workshop sponsors and to keep their lenders happy. From
talking with Larry Williams from EPRI I can tell that he is of the</
same opinion. The only product from the workshop that has materialised so far is
the EOS report (Thanks Mike et al.!), whereas the synthesis and the PR
Challenge haven't. Undoubtedly, you all know the rules of the game, so my only
point here is to remind you that they do operate., PAGES and CLIVAR are also about to engage
in the follow-up workshop project on "proxy data uncertainties" that was born
out of the Wengen meeting. So many of you might yet again enjoy another
workshop. We as sponsors are happy to engage in this, because of the important
science questions addressed and excellent scientists involved. But, as said
above, to maintain support it is paramount that the ideas result in
products.
I thought this to be an interesting comment. It’s laudable that someone emphasizes model validation. What reason could anyone have for thinking that there is nothing to gain from paleoclimate studies? How is it possible to understand man-made influences on the climate without also understanding the natural forcings, causes, and effects?
How can anyone think that these models are robust enough to justify spending hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars?
JTO-036657
From ???@ur momisugly??? Thu Jul 12 10:16:31 2007
Return-Path:
…
>Hi Heinz
I am in agreement with your outline – I would
like to stress my own bias that PAGES (and the
rest of us) need to be pursuing the issue of
model validation (or specific process validation
if you prefer) . There is much to be done on the
area of exploring how models simulate the climate
variability (and the nature of the association
with forcings) that we reconstruct from the
palaeodata. Many people, scientists among them,
believe that the issue of global warming has
nothing to gain from palaeolcimate studies and
they are wrong. Issues such as the climate
sensitivity of models versus the real world and
the roles of specific forcings and their
influence on the future, represent important foci
for continued study. I would like to see this
area of work and collaboration between
palaeoclimatologists and climate (and ecological)
modelers as an explicit priority of future work.
‘Many people, scientists among them, believe that the issue of global warming has nothing to gain from palaeolcimate studies and they are wrong” because we need to be on the gravy train too. LOL
Any study of paleoclimate is likely to show trends and cycles, which must be ascribed to natural causes. Further study may also show that today’s trends are not unusual, and therefor perhaps not alarming.
I find nothing wrong with this statement. If an area is important and deserves more funding, it’s certainly appropriate for scientists to advocate for more study. But let’s just recognize that scientists are human beings who are in competition for status, recognition, and funding. There’s nothing unique about a scientist who receives funding from an oil company.
JTO-036662
“I also agree that we have to show to to a broader community (including
especially the press and our politicians) how important paleoclimatic studies
are. This is also important for our future funding.
Very best regards, Heinz”
One result offer nothing ‘scary ‘ and so gives little impact , another results undermines claim you made and so offers nothing but bad news , another result can be sold as ‘scary ‘ give you headlines and supports you earlier claims .
Now if you chasing funding which are you going to go for ?
And remember this is NOT related to accuracy or scientific validity.
You can make the case that they are acting ‘human ‘ but it they themselves who claim otherwise.
How long could the list have been if skeptics make up only 3% of all scientists?
JTO-057419
From: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: Fwd: canada.com Story
…
Saw Tim Ball’s name on a long list of Canadian skeptics some
time ago. Can’t now find it but I recall a couple of other surprises there.”
If water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, how is it accounted for in the models? Oh, you don’t need models. You just need CO2 inputs, physics, observed data, and climate sensitivity.
JTO-057804
“From: Susan Solomon
Subject: Re: Revised Common Questions for the WG1 AR4
…
I have a few comments on the other questions and your comments on the
comments…
Q12 (How reliable are the models used to make projections…) From my
experience it is worth pointing out that for the most basic
projection, i.e., that further increase in CO2 will lead to
significant warming of the magnitude suggested by IPCC, you do not
need models at all. All you need for that conclusion is some idea of
how much CO2 will rise, the climate sensitivity, and perhaps some idea
of the time lag in the response. How much CO2 will rise (given
emissions) can be seen from how it has risen in the past, e.g., by
assuming an airborne fraction of about half. The climate sensitivity
can be estimated from data (e.g., Lorius et al. Nature 1991 from the
Vostok data) without using a climate model. Time lag due to ocean
thermal inertia can be estimated with a simple back-of-envelope
calculation, but is not essential to see there is a global warming
problem.
“We only need to ask them to trust some basic physics and observed data.”
… should read “botched physics and manipulated data.”
But hey, you say “basic”, I say “botched” — they both start with “b” — is there really such a big difference?
[snip – More useless Doug Cotton claims, threadjacking – mod]
So what about doing away with the back radiation theory which I agree does not sit well with the second law, and slow down escape of heat to space just as a bottleneck slows and backs up traffic? (I’m am not a scientist)
watched the video.
needs more advertisements
hijacking threads again?
This post is a literal word for word cut/paste job I read earlier today at JoNova land.
That was in answer to a topic about Brexit being blamed on Climate Change.
This is in a thread dedicated to email analysis.
What is your end game here, Young Scientist? You seem to be hijacking other people’s blogs and other people’s threads which at best is impolite.
260 comments of nothing burger.
Wow. Eight years to get this, and ?
[the duplicate post was deleted.mod]
I’m still trying to understand what the “in” crowd believes about the MWP. They seem to resent it when people imply that they deny it exists, but then they seem to deny that it exists.
I’m starting to believe it’s a matter of lexicon. What they mean by the MWP is something different than what McIntyre and McKitrick mean by the MWP.
JTO-059413
From ???@ur momisugly??? Sat May 14 20:11:20 2005
Return-Path:
…
Wed May 11 10:59:45 2005 Pacific Time
…
Analysis Reproduces Graph of Late 20th Century Temperature Rise; NCAR
Paleoclimatologist Available to Comment BOULDER, Colo., May
11 (AScribe Newswire) — Caspar Ammann, a paleoclimatologist at the
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), is available to comment
on the so-called hockey stick controversy discussed by Stephen McIntyre
and Ross McKitrick today at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
The hockey stick refers to the shape of a frequently cited graph of
global mean temperature that shows a rapid rise between 1900 and 2000
after 900 years of relative stability. The graph first appeared in a
research paper by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes
published in the journal Nature in 1998. Ammann and Eugene Wahl of Alfred
University have analyzed the Mann-Bradley-Hughes (MBH) climate field
reconstruction and reproduced the MBH results using their own computer
code. They found the MBH method is robust even when numerous
modifications are employed. Their results appear in two new research
papers submitted for review to the journals Geophysical Research Letters
and Climatic Change. The authors invite researchers and others to use the
code for their own evaluation of the method. Ammann and Wahl’s findings
contradict an assertion by McIntyre and McKitrick that 15th century
global temperatures rival those of the late 20th century and therefore
make the hockey stick-shaped graph inaccurate. They also dispute McIntyre
and McKitrick’s alleged identification of a fundamental flaw that would
significantly bias the MBH climate reconstruction toward a hockey stick
shape. Ammann and Wahl conclude that the highly publicized criticisms of
the MBH graph are unfounded. They first presented their detailed analyses
at the American Geophysical Union’s Fall Meeting in San Francisco last
December and at the American Association of Geographers Annual Meeting in
Denver this year. McIntyre and McKitrick’s papers were
published in Energy and Environment (2003 and 2005) and in Geophysical
Research Letters (2005).
Has McIntyre waded in on this? What are the relevations?
In NZ paper yesterday.
NZ Herald
By: Jim Salinger and Michael Mann.
2. Because there is such a powerful consensus, there is no requirement to give climate deniers a platform. A debate with one expert scientist versus one denier demonstrates a false balance; to get a genuine balance you would need at least 97 scientists for every three deniers.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12209554&fbclid=IwAR3ne4ekax6idm5b9sda-ZYmmkNHfm2ae-bMaEF0xYyZXkT_cW2SkqiSVsw
“…to get a genuine balance you need at least 97 scientists for every three deniers”
This statement reveals just how corrupted the AGW idea has become. It completely rejects the scientific method. I think the AGW argument is not really about the affect of CO2, it is ultimately about the validity of the scientific method. Faith ( group think) vs science ( reality). Mann etal would probably be very happy living in the age of the inquisition..:)
Life on earth hangs in the balance… We face a catastrophe of such proportions that we need to spend tens of trillions of dollars… Skeptics are standing in the way of saving the earth such that we can’t move forward…
But we’re not going to engage skeptics in a discussion to change people’s minds.
One could spin that statement to read that 3 climate ‘deniers’ carry the weight of 97 ‘scientists’.
“A debate with one expert scientist versus one denier demonstrates a false balance…”
proclaimed the Witch Doctor!
No real scientist would ever say that.
Mann: “We are actually screening all proxies to see if they have a verifiable signal (temperature or precip) against the instrumental record. So we’re trying to use an objective measure”.
There doesn’t seem anything wrong with this statement because nobody wants to use proxies which cannot be verified against some current, instrumental record. The reason this sentence is highlighted in this article appears to imply that “screening” could mean to verify against any particular expected signal. However that’s not written and would be too dumb to even consider without further evidence. It’s fine to suggest the most unlikely scenario over the more likely one, but it needs more than a random email to show that this unlikely scenario is justified. As you know: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to back it up.
“There doesn’t seem anything wrong with this statement because nobody wants to use proxies which cannot be verified against some current, instrumental record …”.
=======================================================
On the contrary, ex post data screening is circular reasoning:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/screening-now-with-goodbad-treenometers/
Further on the screening fallacy from Steve McIntyre:
‘On the surface, screening a network of proxies for correlation to temperature seems to “make sense”. But the problem is this: if you carry out a similar procedure on autocorrelated red noise, you get hockey sticks. If you think that a class of proxy is a valid temperature proxy, then you have to define the class ahead of time and take it all’:
https://climateaudit.org/2012/05/31/myles-allen-calls-for-name-and-shame/
Well, they certainly discussed these things…
JTO-060963
From: David Rind
Subject: Re: [Fwd: crosschecks sensitivity and paleo]
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, David Rind wrote:
JTO-060969
> Hi Gabi,
>
> I read through the draft, and for whatever
> reason, I didn’t really find any questions
> specifically addressed to me. However, I’ll
> provide some comments on the sections you’ve
> sent, and the LGM sensitivity section in
> particular. In a separate message I’ll highlight
> for Jonathan and Eystein the various places in
> this text where it is indicated that a subject
> has been discussed in chapter 6 – just to make
> sure that discussion is really still there.
>
> Section 9.2
> Paragraph 1: note that the observed changes have
> their own uncertainties (and areas with lack of
> data), which also hinders ‘fingerprint’
> techniques.
>
> Paragraph 2: The additional uncertainty in model
> simulations not discussed in this paragraph is
> their climate response time; as this can be a
> function of climate model sensitivity, the two
> are conjoined, and can effect the attribution of
> transient response with respect to the different
> forcings. [In fact, 9.6.1, at the end of
> Paragraph 1, seems to indicate the rate of ocean
> heat uptake was discussed in 9.2., which it does
> not appear to be.]
>
> Section 9.2.1
> Paragraph 2: I’m not aware of a discussion in
> Chapter 6 of the variability in paleo
> reconstructions that is not explained by external
> forcing – was there something specific you had in
> mind?
>
> Paragraph 3: Again the temporal response is a
> function of the climate response time (and hence
> climate sensitivity) in models.
>
> Section 9.2.1.3
> Paragraph 4: I think the solar discussion in this
> paragraph is out of phase with that in Chapter 2.
> Here it seems to emphasize that the range of 2.7
> to 4 W/m**2 between the late 17th century and
> today is the going one, while there are some
> smaller ones around. Chapter 2 implies rates on
JTO-060969
> the order of 1 W/m**2 are most likely, while
> there are higher ones around.
>
> Paragraph 5: The last sentence gives a mean
> radiative forcing for the Late Maunder Minimum;
> note that if one compares that with the
> temperature reconstructions for this time period,
> it implies a low climate sensitivity.
> Subsequently it is noted that the range of
> possible radiative forcing (and temperature
> response) is too large to provide a climate
> sensitivity for this time period (9.6.2.2). While
> that is not completely inconsistent with what’s
> written in this paragraph, giving a mean value
> presents a more solid target than you may want.
>
> Section 9.3.2
>
> Paragraph 4, as well as 9.3.3: As indicated in a
> recent paper GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL.
> 32, L05712, doi:10.1029/2004GL021217, 2005, using
> all the tropical cooling estimates results in a
> tropical response of 2.7°C cooling, and a land
> response of 5.4°C. These are higher numbers than
> are coming out of the PMIP studies, though the
> models did not necessarily use all the required
> forcings (e.g., lacked aerosols). The reality is
> that there is still considerable uncertainty
> concerning the tropical reconstructions for the
> LGM, and what the proper magnitude of cooling
> actually was. It would be useful if this
> uncertainty was somehow represented in one of
> these paragraphs, for without addressing it, we
> can not improve our estimate of LGM sensitivity
> even if we knew all the forcings. (Note also that
> tropical sensitivity is obviously a big issue for
> the future climate simulations as well, with
> large differences between models.)
>
> Another section affected is 9.6.2.3. In
> Paragraph 2, the PMIP numbers are stated but they
> represent low ends of – or below – the
> temperature estimates given in the above
> observational paper (and again all the forcings
> weren’t necessarily used). This should be noted
> (as it is in Chapter 6). And the uncertainties
> discussed between the two studies in Paragraphs 3
> and 4 of this section are partly the result of
> the poorly constrained SST change during the LGM.
>
> (An additional point for these paragraphs: the
> CLIMBER 2 model uses a parameterized functional
> water vapor feedback and a one layer cloud model
> – it’s response to climate change during the LGM
JTO-060970
> cannot be tuned the way it can, by comparison
> with GCMs, for 2CO2 – so there’s no surprise that
> it would produce a different result from a low
> resolution GCM.)
>
> And in 9.6.3.2, paragraph 2: I would say,
> For the Last Glacial Maximum, the present
> uncertainty about tropical temperature changes
> makes a tight constraint difficult to obtain.
> [The reality is: if you go with CLIMAP SSTs, you
> get a global cooling of 3.7°C; if you try to
> reproduce the tropical land evidence, the cooling
> is some 6°C, or even higher.]
>
>
> Section 9.3.4
>
> Paragraph 1: The simulations suggesting the
> colder period was the Maunder Minimum are
> actually NOT in agreement with the record – none
> of the reconstructions actually show that, with
> some showing the early 16th century, and the Mann
> et al record showing the late 19th century was
> actually colder than the M.M.
>
> David
Gabi’s response:
JTO-061010
“Gabriele Hegerl
Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences,
Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences,
Box 90227
Duke University, Durham NC 27708
Ph: fax
email: hegerl@ur momisuglyduke.edu, http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html
JTO-061010
From ???@ur momisugly??? Tue Aug 02 22:11:53 2005
Return-Path:
Received: from smtpgate.email.arizona.edu (deagol.email.arizona.edu [10.0.0.142])
by email.arizona.edu (Cyrus v2.1.14) with LMTP; Tue, 02 Aug 2005 19:34:26 -0700
X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
Received: from localhost (eomer.email.arizona.edu [10.0.0.219])
by smtpgate.email.arizona.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC40BADD401
for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2005 19:34:26 -0700 (MST)
Received: from compton.acpub.duke.edu (compton.acpub.duke.edu [152.3.233.74])
by smtpgate.email.arizona.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71FC5AED410
for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2005 19:34:22 -0700 (MST)
Received: from duke.edu (dhcp-3-112-205.env.duke.edu [152.3.112.205])
by compton.acpub.duke.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Duke-5.0.0) with ESMTP id
j732Y94r001880;
Tue, 2 Aug 2005 22:34:09 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:23:47 -0400
From: Gabi Hegerl
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
Netscape/7.1
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Rind
Cc: francis ,
Bette Otto-Bliesner , jto@ur momisuglyu.arizona.edu,
eystein.jansen@ur momisuglygeo.uib.no
Subject: Re: [Fwd: crosschecks sensitivity and paleo]
References:
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=”————050804080908070008000306″
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at email.arizona.edu
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.221 required=7 tests=BAYES_05, HTML_30_40,
HTML_FONT_SIZE_TINY, HTML_FONT_TINY, HTML_MESSAGE, HTML_TITLE_EMPTY,
RATWR10_MESSID
X-Spam-Level: x
Dear David, thanks very much for your comments, and also, for getting
them to us so rapidly!!
I have some answers embedded
JTO-061028
Gabi
good point, I added a remark to that effect (fingerprints however
generally focus only on regions where we
have data, but errors are a problem).
Rates of heat uptake are given in a table I couldn’t send due to space
limits on your mailbox, sorry…
I agree on the sensitivity issue and have changed the text to reflect
that response does not scale
exactly linearly with sensitivity
Maybe just a reference to the 20th century warming being unusual
relative to the last millennium – do you say
this? PECK?
agree, but I think thats implicitly said (scaling with sensitivity not
mentioned, only with aerosols)
DAVID, this was where I had a question for you: what is “today”? 2000?
Also, the text on the MM further down right now says radiateive forcing
-0.12 to -1.56, as opposed to the 2.7
from Judith before – is the first one the direct measurement from
satellite and the other one (your numbers)
taking into account the geometry of the earth?
what would be the best estimate for sensitivity from that? Right now, I
write suggests a sensitivity on the low
end of the IPCC range – is that ok? Also, Your writing still uses
Judith’s estimate, should I use 0.25 now rather
than 0.5 as in your text?
ok – I think though this paragraph comes across as simulations having
large uncertainties..
The numbers you give are observational? It would be great to put in
obervational estimates – what range? (I guess
we don’t have global temp change estimates, so what are they?)
Added caveat, thanks
thanks added!
oh, I see. Yes, I changed to one of the coldest periods, since I can
only see the records right now, but for the models
would depend on forcing etc anyway.
tx
Gabi
“I want to be in agreement with you guys, on the other hand, we have to
report what studies find…”
JTO-060994
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 10:00:09 -0400
From: Gabi Hegerl
…
To: Jonathan Overpeck ,
francis
Subject: Re: [Fwd: crosschecks sensitivity and paleo]
Peck,
Thanks – but I don’t understand where chapter 9 would be going at it
alone on solar, and whats
wrong?
Can I give you a call?
Where are you?
I want to be in agreement with you guys, on the other hand, we have to
report what studies find…
I did try to do a very balanced job (Pascale drafted that anyway),
saying the Maunder Minimum could
be solar (David and crew) or volcanic (my paper, Andronova and the
japanese paper).
Is taht what is raising concern???
Gabi
Resolving differences, so things don’t look bad.
Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
Thanks Gabi and David – We will use your list of where 9 refers
to 6 to check that we have the indicated backup discussion. If it’s
not there, then chap 9 can delete the ref to chap 6 and we can work on
it for SOD. Of course, if it’s easy, we’ll do it, but we might be
beyond the point where we can do something sophisticated – LAs are
mostly gone, or if still on-line, quite busy. But, we’ll try…
One thing that could be bad for the FOD is if chapters don’t
agree on the solar. I think David has it right. If chap 9 wants to go
JTO-060995
it alone, then we (Gabi and gang) need to figure out a way to say
things so that it doesn’t look bad. Not sure if that’s possible…
David offers an idea – stress that the low radiative forcing estimates
are now more likely, but that some high ones exist, and they
indicate…
Anyhow, glad we’re doing this, and thanks David for doing a
careful job. Gabi – you have him as a CA, correcto?
best, peck
Shame on a university withholding (stonewalling) on useful information pertinent for global public policy discourse on a supposedly doomsday issue for all mankind.
It hardly matters what Mann and his associates claim to be true.
It is not difficult to assemble the existing data, together with the peer-reviewed MWP temperature studies, into a more-than-adequate global warming meta-study.
There are hundreds of peer-reviewed MWP studies, likely all cataloged at co2science.org, and a significant subset of the studies are temperature-based and the investigations were spread around the globe. There are newer confirming MWP studies showing up regularly.
There are also other kinds of confirming information. For example, the 6,000 boreholes show conclusively that the MWP trend was global. A good discussion of the borehole data can be found at Joanne Nova’s website.
The receding Mendenhall glacier (Alaska) recently exposed a shattered 1,000 year-old forest, still in its original positon. No trees, let alone a forest, have grown at that latitude since then. Ancient vineyards have been found at latitudes where grapes cannot be grown today. Burial sites have been found below the perma-frost. The Vikings had apparently successfully mapped most of Greenland’s coastline.
Other silly claims such as claiming that the MWP studies were not “synchronous” can easily be dealt with. Most proponents of anthropogenic global warming refer back into the 1800s when speaking of the current global warming. But, what about the mild cooling during 1945 to 1975? That’s about as un-synchronous as one can get. Not only that, even if the current warming begins in 1975, there are areas which experienced no warming.
Attempting to refute all the MWP studies cataloged at co2science because the proprietor of that website is Dr. Idso, is downright silly. Idso is merely acting as a librarian (perhaps partly because no alarmist is interested in that data). The studies were (and continue to be) undertaken by the independent efforts of numerous researchers representing dozens of different countries.
Claiming that Idso has “cherry-picked” the studies he maintains at his site is laughable. The folks making such a claim are actually cherry-picking which peer-reviewed studies confirm their bias.
The MWP studies may have nothing to say about our current warming, but they rule out the credibility of anyone who attempts to deny that the MWP was global and as warm, likely warmer, than it is now.
The computer models all assume that most of our current warming has been caused by human activity (fossil fuel usage), their actual culprit being water vapor feedback, which they assume causes 2 to 3 times the supposed temperature increase brought on by co2 increase. Their computer models cannot begin to replicate the MWP. There was no co2 increase, hence no water vapor feedback during the MWP. It’s no wonder that they continue to DENY the global, warmer, MWP.
A tipping point is a temperature at which positive feedbacks take over and we get runaway global warming. James Hansen has warned us of that for a long time.
The fact that the global temperature was higher than now during the MWP and warmer than that during the RWP and warmer yet during the Holocene Climate Optimum, means that we don’t have to worry about a tipping point until the global temperature exceeds a couple of degrees over the current value. That’s why ‘they’ desperately tried to erase the MWP … plus, those higher global temperatures were achieved without the aid of anthropogenic CO2. In other words, the current warming is likely natural rather than human caused.
Although I appreciate all of the above comments, in the grand scheme of things I doubt this treasure trove of information means “diddly squat.”
Looking through all the comments, haven’t seen anything as “good” as “hide the decline”.
Has anyone found anything in all this which could be a smoking gun, – better than the original climate-gate?
Just askin…
Steve O March 6, 2019 at 6:35 am :
— Chris Folland.
They ‘believe in‘ their GHGE models.
I’m interested in why they ‘believe in’ GHGE equations/models, derived from Arrhenius’ 19th century model. Why is so little in their models verified against the real world? Why do they scorn modern work done on carbon dioxide absorption and emittance spectra (studies: 1985, 2005, 2013, 2014)? Why has no one done an experiment since 1900 (Knut Angstrom, who failed to show it) to verify this GHGE?
When I tell them their GHGE hypothesis says earth warms because less OLR is emitted to space, they rationalize away real world data showing a 2W/m² increase (4 complete data sets) in OLR emitted to space since 1985. Real world doing the opposite of their models.
It’s nearly always the same pattern with bad science: cherry pick, model, twist statistics. Actual data fraud is rare. They even think changing past temperatures to delete 1910 – 1940 warming is ‘science’. Much like they think Mann-derived MWP-elimination studies are science. Alarmists are just hacks doing the UN’s bidding; not good scientists. If politicians want anti-scientist alarmists in charge of climate science; all we can do is change the politicians.
One of the climate clowns’s main motto :
If the data don’t fit your theory, fit the data.
Speaking of Arrhenius,
I would also ask, “Why do they believe that Arrhenius’ writings ultimately support their doom narrative?”
… when on page 63 of …
Svante Arrhenius, 1908, Das Werden der Welten (Worlds in the making; the evolution of the universe), Academic Publishing House, Leipzig, 208 pages. https://archive.org/details/worldsinmakingev00arrhrich/page/62
… we find Arrhenius writing:
The problem is, that the MWP was much warmer than it is now:
http://www.sustainableoregon.com/hockeystick.html
JPP
A claim that is unsubstantiatable.
Since we have no thermometry data, we rely upon proxies.
We have few of those covering the period, with minimal coverage of the globe.
Their accuracy is firstly disputable & secondly imprecise.
If it’s good enough for the IPCC to include it then it must be accurate.
Tree rings don’t tell porkies.
So just when will Gore,DiCaprio,Laurie(David)Travolta Etc be making any sacrifices in their lifestyles and go live in a Grass Hut the answer is NEVER these privalged little brats will never give up their pampered lifestyles
Maxwell’s Hammer. Also used for psychological adjustments.