Climategate

imstrongerthanu

Officials at Hadley, a leading global-warming research center, have apparently confirmed to an Australian publication that the documents are genuine.
The whole affair has much of the blogosphere alight. Blogs skeptical of man-made global warming see blood in the water.
Some of the old emails from scientists made public apparently make references to things like “hid[ing] the decline,” referring to global temperature series and different ways to slice and dice climate data.


http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/11/20/hacked-sensitive-documents-lifted-from-hadley-climate-center/?blog_id=9&post_id=8495

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/


The University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre appears to have suffered a security breach earlier today, when an unknown hacker apparently downloaded 1079 e-mails and 72 documents of various types and published them to an anonymous FTP server. These files appear to contain highly sensitive information that, if genuine, could prove extremely embarrassing to the authors of the e-mails involved. Those authors include some of the most celebrated names among proponents of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Hadley-CRU-hacked-with-release-of-hundreds-of-docs-and-emails


In other news the new ford has only 150mg of c02 per... blah blah blah blah.............

Redsunset

:rolleyes:


One of the most damning e-mails published comes from Dr. Jones himself. In an e-mail from almost exactly ten years ago, Jones appears to discuss a method of overlaying data of temperature declines with repetitive, false data of higher temperatures:

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@[snipped], mhughes@
[snipped]
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: [email]k.briffa@[snipped],t.osborn[/email]@[snipped]
Dear 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 [sic] from1961 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, Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit

Jones told Investigate that he couldn’t remember the context of “hide the decline,” and that the process was a way to fill data gaps rather than mislead. But when scientists talk about “tricks” in the context of hiding data, it certainly seems suspicious.
Andrew Bolt points to a couple of other suspicious entries in the database as well for the Herald-Sun. For instance, here we have scientists discussing how to delete inconvenient data in order to emphasize other data that supports their conclusions:

From: Tom Wigley [...]
To: Phil Jones [...]
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer [...]
Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that theland also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips—higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH—just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note – from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not)—but not really enough.
So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
Tom.

Hmmm. Sounds like “hid[ing] the data” once again. And here we have them privately admitting that they can’t find the global warming that they’ve been predicting:

From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
***
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.***

M.T. Cranium

If you're on the fence, look out, the stampede is about to begin.

Pretty soon, everyone will be racing to announce their skepticism, and find a new name for it (we already worked that out, it's realism.)

Anyone need an e-mail?

http://wallstreetpit.com/12324-fear-and-loathing-in-global-warming

Here are some examples:

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.

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.

As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations. [This is from Michael Mann of the Hockey Stick]

The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! … The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil

PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them. [From the same Phil as above, the director of CRU]

If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean … It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip

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.

This doesnt seem to be hitting the news here at all with the floods.
Wonder when we will get full clarification on all of this

Redsunset

well all i can say is,

it's about bloody time all this has finally come out.The Cheats:mad:


However there's alot more being covered up in this mad little world so that the ordinary joe soap can be kept on the chain.

DapperGent

Anyone thinks this demonstrates some kind of global warming conspiracy is a total fúcking retard.

Deep Easterly

DapperGent wrote: »

Anyone thinks this demonstrates some kind of global warming conspiracy is a total fúcking retard.

Interesting counterclaim!

Min

I am a skeptic for a while now.

I remember in the early 80s at school and learning about global cooling and that a possible ice age was not that far away, then it flipped and it was global warming and it was out of control.

I'd say the 'sky is falling in' crowd are out of control.

DapperGent

DapperGent wrote: »

Anyone thinks this demonstrates some kind of global warming conspiracy is a total fúcking retard.

wonderful come back :rolleyes:



http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

The tiny bit at the end is what Al Gore and the boys use

_Kooli_

Dont dis global warming. There are academic and political careers to be made, fortunes to be made and huge amounts in taxes to be raked in from it.

It is the single biggest money spinner for centuries. Even bigger than the property boom

There is no way global warming will be let go of.

Discodog

Science through the ages is full of incidences where scientists knew they were wrong & either couldn't afford to admit it or didn't want to lose face.

asdasd

Anyone thinks this demonstrates some kind of global warming conspiracy is a total fúcking retard.

Totally, dude. A clear conspiracy by the Hadley centre ( whcih was always reluctant to produce it's records anyway) and is one on the major intellectual centres for producung scare stories,and yet to believe what we see with our own lying eyes is retarded.

For the record an doubling in CO2 will increase Earth temperature according to the Stefan–Boltzmann constant of about 1 deg, absent other feedback. I think personally the feedback in negative, so it will be less.

The rest - the 6 degs in 100 years WE ARE ALLL GOING TO DIE - is nonsense.

asdasd

Science through the ages is full of incidences where scientists knew they were wrong & either couldn't afford to admit it or didn't want to lose face.

The people who initially pushed against Galellio were mathematicians and scientists, the Pope was initially sympathetic.

In reality the scientists who have changed the world were self-funded. That is the only way to pure science. Getting paid by a government is not a way to independence, unless there is nothing political at stake.

Getting government funding is not unlike getting private funding - ie. from a dragons den type, the team leaders have to go and present their case to the financial guys - except getting it from the government you have an interest in making claims the politicans - who are not scientists - can't ignore.

to a certain extent, it is natural for scientists to over-egg the situation ( as with swine flu this year) because the consequences of being wrong by over-estimation is the cost to the government of a flue vaccine, the cost of under-estimation is thousands of deaths.

The scientists probably realise that the worst case scenarios are unlikely but may happen. The noble lie.

imstrongerthanu

Well there caught red handed now and I'm delighted.You have seen the latest car ads on TV which highlight co2 emissions,they're ridiculous.Cows produce methane, which is 25 times more potent than co2.Climate change is a farce and the people who push this are scoundrels.We don't need another tax.Plant a few trees and stfu.

Fair play to the hacker who broke in and got these emails.
Now how will they try spin this one?

In reality the scientists who have changed the world were self-funded. That is the only way to pure science.

Never a truer word spoken.

Deep Easterly

What I find interesting about Climate Change is that those "in the know" are doing exactly the same thing and saying the same thing as religious nuts down throughout the history of mankind.

Repent! Change your ways! Or thou art doomed! and the skies will fall down upon ye!

Exactly the same thing in my opinion, except that because the message comes under the name of science the message carries more weight amongst those that assume themselves to have a higher intellectual understanding of the world around them.

I was an avid sceptic and I suppose I still am, but there is no doubt the global temperature has increased over the last few decades. However, who is to say that this is not an entirely natural cycle? who is to say it isn't. It is all up in the air. :pac:

imstrongerthanu

However, who is to say that this is not an entirely natural cycle?

The weather is supposed to stay exactly the same always.

Discodog

The other thing that characterises cultish obsession is the way that non believers are vilified. True science encourages alternative views whereas the GW lobby dismiss it as lunacy. That alone makes me very suspicious. Whenever a new theory is put forward it is automatically slammed.

Any scientist/adviser that is paid by industry will be biased. This is the stick that is used to beat Bellamy. He decided to be a corporate animal & even if he is talking sense no one will believe him now. The joke is that his no warming theory suited the oil companies then but now they are investing millions in alternatives.

When a bandwagon starts rolling it takes a lot of courage to stand up & argue against it.

asdasd

Any scientist/adviser that is paid by industry will be biased. This is the stick that is used to beat Bellamy.

I think they may well be, but the opposite is true when government funding is at stake

i.e. if saying to politicians "there is little to fear" cuts your funding then they will not be told there is little to fear.

Discodog

Oh absolutely. There is no way that people will make predictions that put them out of work. The CC industry has become massive. No one is going to say that the Emperor may be naked.

My real concern is that valid research may be of been simply dismissed. Whilst I am no conspiracy theorist I wonder to what lengths world governments might go to avoid looking like idiots.

asdasd

Well, another decade of little or no warming will put an end to the WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE scenarios.

On the 6 degrees issue. This from the independent:

Global temperatures are on a path to rise by an average of 6C by the end of the century as CO2 emissions increase and the Earth's natural ability to absorb the gas declines, according to a major new study.

Scientists said that CO2 emissions have risen by 29% in the past decade alone and called for urgent action by leaders at the UN climate talks in Copenhagen to agree drastic emissions cuts in order to avoid dangerous climate change.

Notice how these claims are divorced from empirical evidence. The world has not warmed in any statistical useful fashion this century, and has fallen since 1998. This, now, is not just a statistical artifact of one or two years, which could be argued up to 2002 at most. it is still true this year which is an el nino year. In fact there hasnt been an La Niña in the last decade. Were there one it would push temperatures below the 1960-1990 average.

Now I can possibly see a slowdown of this magnitude caused by other factors if the predictions were of 1-2 degrees a century ( which is, in fact, the IPCC prediction). But not if we are expected to see 6 degrees a century, and if Carbon emissions were increasing to the WORST CASE SCENARIO.

If the models were predicting 6 degrees a century I would expect to see the moving average increase by 0.6C a decade. Which isnt happening.

Nor do they feel the need to explain it, and nor do the models have to predict reality at all, it seems. The models can live in their own little worlds.

I dont know what this is, but science it isn't.

Min

What gets on my nerves is the past week and the floods and excessive rain, it always goes back to climate change in the media. Questions like is this a sign of climate change then you have some supporter of Climate change, we can't contribute climate change to individual events but yes these are the things we expect.
I just wonder where was our summer drought? Those of of us in the south and East are told climate change will mean summer droughts, more like to drown in the summer waiting for evidence of a drought.
Then the question is, is climate change the reason the summer is so bad.....

In the past 1,000 years we had the medieval warm period and a mini ice age, I go with natural climate change rather than the rubbish we have to listen to all the time about man made climate change.
CO2 levels are suppose to have risen by 100 parts per million in the past 200 years (think its the last 200 year period) that would be a 0.01% rise in CO2 levels.
One would think listening to media hysteria from advocates of man made global warming the % rise was far far more significant.

sunset

Returning to the original reports it is worth noting that it was made public by the BBC a couple of days ago at

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm

and that Phil Jones has already confirmed the event and that the date are real, at

http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the briefing room/

Also, the Guardian newspaper has already referred to scientists colluding in manipulating data. But I have found none of the Irish media mentioning the story!

One of the concerning aspects of this is that the data is not available for anyone else to repeat the analysis to check it. This is potentially devastating for the IPCC since it must be apparent that none of their members bothered to critically evaluate the data and its analysis.

patneve

I'd just like to share my thoughts on global warming:D

It is known throughout the world that the world has gone through warming periods and cooling periods. Mother Nature is supreme, her factors influence climate more than we do, regardless of all the C02 we're pumping into the atmosphere. We do not know, nor will ever discover the mysteries behind climate change (to get it straight our climate is ALWAYS changing).
If we really are going through a progressive warming of the earth, who says that its due to ever increasing CO2 emissions? A few charts (not a few, loads) that show strong correlation between warming temperatures do not convince me. There are various articles on the net about the flourishing wine industry in Southern Britain. I'd say 80% of those articles mention the two holy words 'Global Warming' in them. Yes, well, why don't these scientists explain to me why grapes were being cultivated in Southern Britain in the Medieval ages?? Our climate is CYCLICAL, our globe has gone through warming and cooling periods since it started.

HOWEVER, I do still believe that we should continue to curb greenhouse gas emissions, it can only lead to a healthier environment. I'd also add deforestation and pollution to that list.

All I can say I can't wait for our planet to cool down a degree or two! That'll teach those scientists that Mother Nature controls and doesn't give a ****e about our little puffs of greenhouse gases. :cool:

Patneve.

Danno

What is all the fuss about C02? Plants absorb it and release Oxygen in its place!!!

Our country is in ecenomic crisis and the gofoons in power want Carbon Tax. How will carbon tax remove CO2 from the air is beyond me.

Instead of paying cap and trade carbon taxes, we should be diverting these monies into cleaning up ground water which is actually an environmental issue that needs sorting out straight away.

Martinog

patneve wrote: »

All I can say I can't wait for our planet to cool down a degree or two! That'll teach those scientists that Mother Nature controls and doesn't give a ****e about our little puffs of greenhouse gases. :cool:

Patneve.

BUT when that happens they will claim they have saved the world,because carbon tax will have been implemented for two years previous.

What really bugs me,is this new tax money isn't going to Ireland,it's going to Europe with their secretive election of rulers,and then where? off two some thirdworld country that was screwed over by the IMF,PFFFF but that's for another day.

The mainstream media seems to be largely ignoring this story running with Copenhagen stories and things like this:

We are all doomed!!

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=atJRfSKS0cOA

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 said oceans will gain 18 centimeters to 59 centimeters (7 inches to 23 inches) by 2100

oh no wait!

and that uncertainty surrounds forecasts for the amount Antarctica will contribute. Bamber said the margin of error for the latest prediction about East Antarctica -- of 52 billion tons -- meant the sheet’s contribution could still be close to zero.

hmmmn

“The margins of error are so large that it can be difficult to draw strong conclusions,” Bamber said, pointing to a 2008 study he co-wrote that estimated East Antarctica’s ice loss at 4 billion tons, with an error margin of 61 billion tons.

asdasd

4 billion tons, with an error margin of 61 billion tons.

haha. Who has ever seen an error margin like that before. They are saying that it is probably going to accumulate snow and ice on the east. Up to 57 billion tons.

To be fair to the IPCC report there is little mention of antartica at all. The claim most of the rise in sea temperature would come from thermal effects on the sea. That makes sense to me. The melting of Antartica does not.

asdasd

asdasd wrote: »

haha. Who has ever seen an error margin like that before. They are saying that it is probably going to accumulate snow and ice on the east. Up to 57 billion tons.

To be fair to the IPCC report there is little mention of antartica at all. The claim most of the rise in sea temperature would come from thermal effects on the sea. That makes sense to me. The melting of Antartica does not.

http://www.charr.org/char/how_and_why.htm

As the ice melted sea level rose until it was about 4m more than today (eustatic sea level change). But, the enormous weight of the ice was becoming less of an influence on Ireland. The land relieved of its burden began to rise (isostatic lift). Initially the rate of sea level rise would have been greater than the eustatic lift. The changing currents and tides would have had a dramatic effect on the coastline. Then the rate of isostatic lift increased and features such as beaches were lifted high above sea level, up to 20m in Northern Ireland.

Parts of Scandanavia today are rebouding far quicker than sea levels are rising! None of this is clear cut like they want you to believe.

I'm a long term "sceptic" but have kept fairly quiet for the past 20 years or so... But am happy to see that descenting voices are finally being heard, I'm not going to duplicate the replies I have put in the "green issues" forum.

I've always believed that mankind is having a profound affect on "local" environments and weather, deforrestation etc but never believed that effects were great enough to impact on the global environment.

One major volcano or solar storm will have a greater affect than several months of human activity.

TetsuoHashimoto

Deep Easterly wrote: »

Interesting counterclaim!

we need more evidence

TetsuoHashimoto

TetsuoHashimoto wrote: »

we need more evidence

For or against??

Two pictures of flooded roads taken out of context mean nothing, they could be on natural flood plains that have been constricted by developments elswhere forcing more water into a smaller area!