Log in or Sign up

Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Sourdoughman, Nov 20, 2009.

Page 2 of 18

Bandit88 Old Enough to Know Better

Joined:

Aug 25, 2007

Messages:

6,068

Likes Received:

511

martin said: ↑

...the issue is politicized in a such a way that certain results are desirable. and that ruins everything.
Click to expand...

Human nature and politics. Amazing that some true believers just can't wrap their minds around it.

Bandit88, Nov 21, 2009

#11
jibboo Founding Member

Joined:

Sep 25, 2003

Messages:

67

Likes Received:

13

Hate to say it... but... TOLD YA SO!

jibboo said: ↑

Using statistical methods (especially trending) for non-static sytems like climate is frought danger. [...] Dynamical models are extremely sensitive to inputs that always contain the modeler's bias in setting up the inital conditions. Back when I was modeling groundwater contaminant transport I could justify and tweek the initial conditions and a host of assumed but unverifiable parameters to have almost whatever outcome I wanted. Those are the same numeric methods used for climate modeling. I don't have any experience with climate models but I'd be surprised if they could not be influenced similarly.
Click to expand...

From hacked email...

From: Gary Funkhouser <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: kyrgyzstan and siberian data
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:37:09 -0700

Keith,

Thanks for your consideration. Once I get a draft of the central and southern siberian data and talk to Stepan and Eugene I'll send it to you.

I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that.
[...]

Cheers, Gary
Gary Funkhouser
Lab. of Tree-Ring Research
The University of Arizona
Click to expand...

jibboo said: ↑

The “mean” temperature should be set at -10,000 years ago. Not 1961. A 29-year “mean” isn’t statistically significant in a system with a cyclic period of 70,000 years. A “anomalous” 0.4-deg rise since 1961 could simply the continuation of a longer “anomalous” cycle that’s on the order of 10’s of degrees. It’s well within the noise of the signal.

The entire “anomaly” depicted in the IPCC chart has been experienced before, long before man was producing anthropomorphic CO2. I don’t think the Vikings had cars or coal powered electric plants. I could be wrong though.
Click to expand...

From one of the hacked emails....

From: Phil Jones
To: “Parker, David (Met Office)”>, Neil Plummer
Subject: RE: Fwd: Monthly CLIMATbulletins
Date: Thu Jan 6 08:54:58 2005
Cc: “Thomas C Peterson”

Neil,
Just to reiterate David’s points, I’m hoping that IPCC will stick with 1961-90.
The issue of confusing users/media with new anomalies from a different base period is the key one in my mind.

…

Personally I don’t want to change the base period till after I retire !
Cheers
Phil

At 09:22 05/01/2005, Parker, David (Met Office) wrote:

Neil
There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of IPCC AR4 to stay with the 1961-1990 normals. This is partly because a change of normals confuses users, e.g. anomalies will seem less positive than before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global warming will be muted. Also we may wish to wait till there are 30 years of satellite data, i.e until we can compute 1981-2010 normals, which will then be globally complete for some parameters like sea surface temperature.
Regards
David
Click to expand...

jibboo, Nov 21, 2009

#12
PURPLE TIGER HOPE is not a strategy!

Joined:

Nov 2, 2006

Messages:

7,186

Likes Received:

395

Yeah but that doesn't help their political agenda so they'll just stick with 29 years. :hihi:

PURPLE TIGER, Nov 21, 2009

#13
jibboo Founding Member

Joined:

Sep 25, 2003

Messages:

67

Likes Received:

13

I feel like I have to point this out even though my somelady has summoned me for spoon duty... a lot of folks have seized on this email:

From: "Michael E. Mann" ([email protected])
To: Phil Jones ([email protected]), [email protected], Tom Wigley ([email protected]), Tom Crowley ([email protected]), Keith Briffa ([email protected]), [email protected], Michael Oppenheimer ([email protected]), Jonathan Overpeck ([email protected])
Subject: Re: Prospective Eos piece?
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:17:57 -0400
Cc: [email protected], Scott Rutherford ([email protected])

[...]

Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back--I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back. [...] If we wanted to be fancy, we could do this the way certain plots were presented in one of the past IPCC reports
Click to expand...

MWP is the mideival warming period. The issue is the word contain. The passage could be paraphrased as:

I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to minimize appearances of the putative "MWP"...
Click to expand...

OR

I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to include all of the putative "MWP"...
Click to expand...

Some are sensationalizing the story as the first interpretation. Don't believe the hype. I believe the latter is correct, and Mann meant inclusive. Especially since he got debunked, slammed, and skewered for ignoring the MWP in the infamous "hockey stick" fraud atttempt.

HOWEVER! The damning part of this email is sentance that follows: "even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back." What he seems to be saying is that they are going to show the data on the chart, but not adjust the mean for it. It's only partially incoporated. This is probably (speculation) why he chose to include quotation marks around the word --contain.

This would make the 2k-1k time data included on the time axis; but the warm period would not be included in computing the mean. Without the higher temperatures of the 2k-1k warm period in the mean -- it a lowers the 'average'. Which therefore makes the modern "anomoly" appear higher than it really is. Fradulently misleading -- just as the original 'hockey stick' curve. All while making it appear the graph "includes" the entire data set.

Neat trick, huh?

jibboo, Nov 22, 2009

#14
jibboo Founding Member

Joined:

Sep 25, 2003

Messages:

67

Likes Received:

13

Ahem...

jibboo said: ↑

I walked out of the "global warming" camp when I asked one modeler what effect water vapour had on his model. He said it wasn't significant. I asked if he'd ever looked at a psychrometric chart. He responded "what's that?" I also asked him if he could sketch the heat flows in/out of his elemental control volume used for his model. "What's that?" He made some purty graphs though.
Click to expand...

Now I know why my question couldn't be answered!

Kevin Trenberth wrote:
> Hi Tom
> How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where
> close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to
> make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy
> budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the
> climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless
> as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a
> travesty!
> Kevin
Click to expand...

:lol:
But when all else fails... just ignore data you don't agree with!

From: Mick Kelly ([email protected])
To: ([email protected])
Subject: RE: Global temperature
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 09:02:00 +1300

Yeah, it wasn't so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a longer - 10 year - period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you might expect from La Nina etc.

Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also. Anyway, I'll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that's trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.

Enjoy Iceland and pass on my best wishes to Astrid.

Mick
Click to expand...

Even if the law requires disclosure:

At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc! Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs [McKitrick, McIntyre] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.
Click to expand...

From: Phil Jones ([email protected])
To: "Michael E. Mann" ([email protected])
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

Cheers Phil
Click to expand...

For the record you can read all of the e-mails here: Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable

Also noteable... almost no mention of solar forcing, water vapour effects, and clouds. The only cloud ref I've come across is one admitting the can't model it...

BUNK!... this wasn't science. This was propaganda and fraud. Charlatons!

jibboo, Nov 23, 2009

#15

2 people like this.
SabanFan The voice of reason

Joined:

Oct 21, 2002

Messages:

26,080

Likes Received:

1,247

red55 said: ↑

There has never been a better example of "some people will believe anything". :lol:

"I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't believed it." -- Marshall McLuhan

Click to expand...

Sorry Red, but you cannot snidely brush this off. This story has legs.

SabanFan, Nov 24, 2009

#16
Tigerbnd05 National Champs 2003 2007

Joined:

Aug 5, 2003

Messages:

1,231

Likes Received:

69

SabanFan said: ↑

Sorry Red, but you cannot snidely brush this off. This story has legs.
Click to expand...

I would venture to say Red is correct on this one, they seem to be doing a good job of having all their research reviewed and approved by their peers so it can be published in the scientific journals. :grin:

Tigerbnd05, Nov 24, 2009

#17
XXL TideFan Founding Member

Joined:

Nov 11, 2003

Messages:

2,098

Likes Received:

1,223

Watermelons exposed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Her Red...had any good strawberries lately?

PLBSS

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

Inhofe Says He Will Call for Investigation on "Climategate"

Hiding evidence of global cooling

XXL TideFan, Nov 24, 2009

#18
mobius481 Registered Member

Joined:

Jan 20, 2006

Messages:

7,731

Likes Received:

1,350

Jibboo is straight blowing this thing up. Nice job Jibboo!

mobius481, Nov 24, 2009

#19
Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

Joined:

Oct 11, 2003

Messages:

12,326

Likes Received:

575

SabanFan said: ↑

Sorry Red, but you cannot snidely brush this off. This story has legs.
Click to expand...

Red has left the building!:lol:

Sourdoughman, Nov 24, 2009

#20

(You must log in or sign up to reply here.)

Page 2 of 18

Share This Page