Hadley CRU hacked…AGW cover blown
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxxDear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.Cheers
PhilProf. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
I’m downloading the file now. You can too from http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XD050VKY
61 MB is a lot of data/emails etc.
The original poster said:
“We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.
We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documentsI agree. That said none of this has been verified. It could be a plant. It could be theft. It could be a lot of things. But, with the world’s economy in the balance, I’m going all Greenpeace and will take a look at the material and post what I think people should know with the appropriate disclaimers in place.
However, if the above email is any indication, this could well be the revelation which finishes off the faux science of man made, CO2 induced, climate change.
November 19th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
I had the radio on CBC this morning and they had some PR guy talking about how terrible it was that there were non believers.
This stuff stinks to high heaven. I’m not surprised that some of the smelly stuff has shown up somewhere. Should be interesting.
There will be lawsuits, slapp suits and much rending of garments.
Should be a great show at least.
Derek
November 19th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
“This is John Cross; I’m out of the office until further notice. Please leave a message after the beep.”.....heh
Talk about your heroes with feet of clay.
November 19th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
I am just wearing my eyes out reading the emails. It is like pulling back the green cloth and seeing the little wizard.
Apparently, Steve McIntyre will not be getting a Christmas card from any member of the “Team” any time soon.
November 19th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
This may be the inconvenient truth Al Gore was referring to…
November 20th, 2009 at 3:34 am
Lovely stuff—let’s hope they stumble across something that begins “Do you think we can fool them with …” or “Keep adding 0.5 to all the numbers since 1990.” I suppose they do that kind of communication at the pub.
November 20th, 2009 at 7:51 am
This is John Cross. I am out of the office until you can post the relevant parts about the changes in radiation physics and quantum mechanics. ;-)
Seriously. I am sure it will make interesting reading for some, but unless you can find something that actually changes our understanding of AGW then it is just dirt.
Regards,
John
November 20th, 2009 at 8:02 am
dkite, I’m maybe he just has the flu. I’m sure he’ll be able to explain all this to us.
November 20th, 2009 at 10:55 am
I tend to agree, the e-mails alone don’t change things that much, we already had profound concerns about this science (in the skeptic community) and finding out that the dodgy science may have come from dodgy people is not that surprising.
The question all along is really this—how big is the real impact of human modification of climate, is it really as big as claimed, would it continue to grow as predicted, or is the reality something much different, a very small impact that will not grow exponentially, and which is always subject to being overwhelmed by much larger natural variations?
In other words, are we all worked up over nothing, was it just a natural blip back around 1998-2002 that had many in such a panic in the climate world?
If so, we shouldn’t be rolling the dice with large-scale economic questions just to give China further advantages (as if they needed any more).
If the Maldives get their feet wet, it’s always about 27 C there, they won’t be getting hypothermia. Perhaps someone will think of bigger stilts.
And if we lose the waterfront of most major cities, we’ll also lose the drug trade and most of the red light districts too.
Seriously, I believe this has been a much bigger version of the 1938 radio hoax about a Martian invasion, and about the same egg on face is bound to follow. The e-mail story may hasten that day.
November 20th, 2009 at 10:57 am
John wrote
“Seriously. I am sure it will make interesting reading for some, but unless you can find something that actually changes our understanding of AGW then it is just dirt.”
What would that something be in your view John? What would it take to change your mind on AWG?
November 20th, 2009 at 11:23 am
He he, the moment I heard critical peer group dissenters dismissed as ‘deniers’, I knew AGW crisis was fraudulent based in doctored data. This is just icing.
November 20th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
This is John Cross. I am out of the office until you can post the relevant parts about the changes in radiation physics and quantum mechanics. ;-)
Seriously. I am sure it will make interesting reading for some, but unless you can find something that actually changes our understanding of AGW then it is just dirt.
Well, it is dirt indeed, but it still remains that CO2 levels have risen and there is a theory that ties the global climate to CO2 levels predicting disastrous consequences. The proponents of this theory have advanced as a solution the restriction of industrial activities and massive transfers of wealth from the industrialized nations to the third world nations, all overseen by a large bureaucracy managed by the UN, all this even though it is unlikely that such a program would have any affect on CO2 levels, except perhaps in its ability to strangle out economies. There is no empiric data defining the affect changing CO2 levels has on the climate, and so we are unsure if CO2 is a weak forcing agent or a negligible forcing agent. The basic problems with the situation remains. The difference is it is clear that the scientists whose theories and measurements we have been relying upon to guide our discussion on policy decisions have not been entirely honest in their presentation of the facts.
That’s a problem.
November 20th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
This is John Cross. I am out of the office until you can post the relevant parts about the changes in radiation physics and quantum mechanics. ;-)
Seriously. I am sure it will make interesting reading for some, but unless you can find something that actually changes our understanding of AGW then it is just dirt.
Well, it is dirt indeed, but it still remains that CO2 levels have risen and there is a theory that ties the global climate to CO2 levels predicting disastrous consequences. The proponents of this theory have advanced as a solution the restriction of industrial activities and massive transfers of wealth from the industrialized nations to the third world nations, all overseen by a large bureaucracy managed by the UN, all this even though it is unlikely that such a program would have any affect on CO2 levels, except perhaps in its ability to strangle out economies. There is no empiric data defining the affect changing CO2 levels has on the climate, and so we are unsure if CO2 is a weak forcing agent or a negligible forcing agent. The basic problems with the situation remain. The difference is it is clear that the scientists whose theories and measurements we have been relying upon to guide our discussion on policy decisions have not been entirely honest in their presentation of the facts.
That’s a problem.
November 20th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
I don’t need to be a scientist, John, to know when I’m being scammed. These e-mails just confirm the character of the individuals involved…nothing to do with rocket science.
Sort of like when a TV evangelist gets caught with his pants down, literally. His knowledge of scriptures isn’t part of the ensuing discussion…
November 20th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
“His knowledge of scriptures isn’t part of the ensuing discussion…”
That’s a good one DaninVan! Kind of hard at this point to continue the discussion of ancient CO2 level estimates based on ice field bore hole samples when you know someone’s been tinkering with the data and communicating back and forth with his fellow proponets on how it all gets done.
But we still will.
November 20th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
The problem is this is all a very difficult science to know. We are attempting to reconstruct the past and predict what the future holds on the basis of a single forcing agent of unknown influence, and the methods and basis of understanding are too far removed for the common person to know well enough to be able to enter the discussion. Thus the people and their political leadership depend upon the representations of the facts as submitted by the climatologists. That is why the insertion of politics into this field of science was so dangerous. For such a person to fudge data and shield the studies from the scrutiny of others is utterly unethical. It is taking advantage of the ignorance of others for ones own benefit.
November 20th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Surely there must be a law against screwing over the Gov’t…;)
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
November 20th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
They want to discredit the skeptics because their science doesn’t do it for them.
Simple as that.
I’ll make it even easier to understand—when you predict global warming, you need to be able to point to a globe that is warming. This one ain’t. Hasn’t been since 1999.
November 20th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Douh Newton: What would it take to change my mind? I can think of three things right off the bat.
1) A change in our understanding of quantum theory.
2) A change in our understanding of how the natural greenhouse effect works.
3) A sustained cooling trend (in climatological terms) while the forcing agents are indicating warming.
DaninVan: I do not see the two as equivalent. An evangelist is selling something that is intangible (a set or morals) which is based in part on how he acts. A scientist is selling an idea that can be tested by others. It does not matter that Roy Spencer is a creationist but rather what his science says.
Regards,
John
November 20th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Of course you don’t, John. That’s the problem. Apparently for you, a scientist’s scruples are irrelevant. For me a huckster is a huckster is a huckster. Aluminum siding salesmen have more integrity then those involved in this scam.
November 20th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
“A scientist is selling an idea that can be tested by others. It does not matter that Roy Spencer is a creationist but rather what his science says.”
That is true.
How does religious faith enter into the equation here? It would be as if the TV evangelist had evidence that the “miracle at the meeting” was staged, but kept the congregation in the dark. There may be reasons to believe, but not on the basis of the miracles we all witnessed at the meeting.
November 20th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
“Aluminum siding salesmen have more integrity then those involved in this scam.”
Well, certainly the sales targets involved are far higher.
November 20th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Nicholas:The difference is it is clear that the scientists whose theories and measurements we have been relying upon to guide our discussion on policy decisions have not been entirely honest in their presentation of the facts.
That’s a problem.
I might understated, wouldn’t you say? Just as my use of the word “might” in this comment in meant to be facetious. These pseudo-scientists are guilty at the very least of serious ethics violations. I think perhaps (and hope) the same fate awaits them as befell Gilbert Burnham, author of the discredited Lancet paper that grossly exaggerated the number of civilian casualties in Iraq during the war earlier this decade.
November 20th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
O’Donnell: ...when you predict global warming, you need to be able to point to a globe that is warming. This one ain’t. Hasn’t been since 1999.
And in the email exchanges between Mann et al, they were very puzzled about that as they knew it poked a substantial hole in their thesis. Moreover, they went on to discuss ways of doctoring the data, making the facts fit their theory, rather than the other way around, and suppressing any academic discussion about it by the dreaded “deniers”.
November 20th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
TGIF eh, John? ;)
November 21st, 2009 at 10:18 am
Thanks for your reply John
I don’t expect changes to our understanding of quantum theory any time soon and as I understand it the effects of the greenhouse gases as measured in a lab are not in question.
The AWG theory states that human activities have contributed to an unprecedented period of warming of the earth’s climate.
The unprecedented warming is caused by the generation of greenhouse gases even though they represent only about 1/20th of the naturally occurring sources and all greenhouse gases, natural or man made, account for about 20% of the overall greenhouse effect when water vapour in the form of clouds are included.
There also appears to be some question about the effects of the individual gases in combination as some absorb and emit radiation at the same frequencies and there lso appears to be some lack of understanding as to the overall role of these gases in the complex mechanisms that control the planet’s climate.
Doesn’t the fact that we are not experiencing the warming predicted by current theory give you any pause for reconsideration of your understanding of how the natural greenhouse effect works?
I don’t understand why you would require a sustained cooling trend (in climatological terms)to change your mind when it hasn’t taken a sustained warming period(one that can be sorted from natural variation) to make you a believer in the first place.
It is very difficult for a layman to understand these issues and you will forgive me if I can’t just accept at face value what some scientists are saying, particularly when they are used to promote what are to my eyes and experience a variety of ponzi schemes for wealth transfer.
November 21st, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Doug: A couple of comments. TO begin with, while our contribution of CO2 to the annual cycle is small (you say 1/20, I say about 3%) the fact is that we are responsible for all the increase in CO2 in the recent past. SO we are currently responsible for about 30% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
In regards to the temperature trends, if you plot 10 year averages (keep in mind that the standard definition of climate uses 30 years) you see continuous warming.
Let me turn the question back to you. With the change in phase of the PDO we are seeing temperatures warming significantly. While 2009 will only come in at about 4 or 5th warmest, 2010 should be warmer. If it turns out that 2010 is say warmest or second warmest, would that change you mind?
Regards,
John
November 22nd, 2009 at 11:46 am
When you consider the hundredths of a degree required to boost recent years into “warmest ever” territory (when compared to reasonably warm years well back in the period of record), and then you consider the many different ways that these small differences can be added to the data without making much of a fuss, it further dampens the real impact of these scary sounding statistics.
The fact is that most of the record high temperatures at stations with long, unbroken periods of record, lie well back in the past. This makes many in the weather community suspicious that the global data are being massaged to get these desired results. The alternative explanation is that large anomalies showing up in a few isolated regions like Svalbard are causing the global means to rise very slightly. Unless these anomalies start to spread to many other regions, it really has much less significance than the IPCC claims.
We saw in 2007 how the ice regime in the northern hemisphere has built-in self-corrective characteristics, which means that we may just have witnessed the last episode of a natural warming cycle that began in lower latitudes around 1998 and worked its way into the higher latitudes through to about 2007, before dissipating largely through feedback processes (the open water created more snowfall, that chilled the arctic basin, now colder air has started to spread south again).
This has been the whole problem all along for AGW, it is just trying to make a mountain out of a hill, and about the same kind of hill that was seen in the MWP. The main problem is with the computer projections of huge positive anomalies in the future—these are the least plausible part of the theory, even if the analysis of the present is valid, these future projections are based on mere speculation and fail to account for natural variability or feedback processes.