Mike, Gavin,
Here are a few important mods to your piece. Don't mention Keith has been off ill.
Remove the bit about provenance and about access to more data. We'll go into the latter in
the longer bit next week.
We'll send the piece we're putting up later - or give you the link.
Rest of your piece is great - especially the bit on how science should be done. Keith has
also picked up in the bit we'll post that McIntyre has put in the caveats but lets others
say the outrageous things in comments or on other blogs.
Cheers
Phil
At 03:42 01/10/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
Dear Tim, Phil, Malcolm,
I've enclosed a draft of our article, which we'd like to go online w/
tomorrow (attached as a word file--unfortunately this distorts the
post relative to the way it will actually look on the website, but it
was the easiest way to send w/ hyperlinks and figures intact).
Please let us know if there is anything that you think is either
erroneous, unclear, etc. in the piece.
we'll link to whatever CRU puts up tomorrow as soon as a link is
available.
thanks in advance for your help,
mike
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [1]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[2]
Dear Tim, Phil, Malcolm,
I've enclosed a draft of our article, which we'd like to go online w/ tomorrow (attached
as a word file--unfortunately this distorts the post relative to the way it will
actually look on the website, but it was the easiest way to send w/ hyperlinks and
figures intact).
Please let us know if there is anything that you think is either erroneous, unclear,
etc. in the piece.
we'll link to whatever CRU puts up tomorrow as soon as a link is available.
thanks in advance for your help,
mike
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [3]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [4]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[5]
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. ~mann/Mann/index.html
2.
3. mailto:mann@psu.edu
4. ~mann/Mann/index.html
5.


>Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:43:50 +0200
>From: Anders Moberg
>User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080720)
>To: Keith Briffa
>Subject: Re: URGENT
>X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at smtp.su.se
>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.202 tagged_above=-99 required=7 tests=[AWL=0.110,
>  BAYES_00=-2.312]
>X-Spam-Level:
>X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00
>X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f023)
>X-Spam-Score: 0.00 () [Tag at 5.00] SPF(none,0)
>X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f023 (inherits from
>UEA:10_Tag_Only,UEA:default,base:default)
>X-Canit-Stats-ID: 32039918 - 2186b9c79b71
>X-Antispam-Training-Forget:
>
>X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam:
>
>X-Antispam-Training-Spam:
>
>X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184
>
>Yes, of course! It is attached here. As you might perhaps imagine,
>the little corrigendum in Nature 2006 which led me to produce this
>data file was a consequence of requests from McIntyre to get the data.
>
>Actually, Phil has already got the data from me (but he might have
>forgotten it). I don't have any raw data, just the data sent here.
>
>cheers,
>Anders
>
>
>
>Keith Briffa skrev:
>>Anders
>>now I must ask a favour - could you send me the data for the long
>>Russian chronology that was produced by Sidorova et al.
>>At the very least I need the numbers representing their final
>>chonology straight away - I need to include them in a reworking of
>>a recent science paper (rather than trying to digitise them from a
>>scan). I would also like the raw data but understand if you are not able
>>to release these .
>>thanks
>>Keith
>>
>>14:56 01/10/2009, you wrote:
>>>Dear Keith,
>>>
>>>Thanks for the support letter. It is perfect for our case!
>>>
>>>Anders
>>
>>--
>>Professor Keith Briffa,
>>Climatic Research Unit
>>University of East Anglia
>>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>>
>>Phone: +44-1603-593909
>>Fax: +44-1603-507784
>>
>>
>
>--
>
>Anders Moberg
>Bert Bolin Centre for Climate Research
>Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology
>Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
>
>Phone: +46 (0)8 6747814, Fax: +46 (0)8 164818
>anders.moberg@natgeo.su.se
>www.ink.su.se   www.bbcc.su.se
>~amobe
>
>
>
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\indigirka_moberg05.dat"


Keith - is there a time in the next few days when you could stand
talking briefly about this on the phone?  I think the fog about the
status of the Indigirka/Yakutua data could be cleared really quickly
that way. Once again, I'm really sorry it has been necessary to bother
you with this. Cheers, Malcolm
Keith Briffa wrote:
> Malcolm
> honestly just a cross thread between Tom and I.  I had been asked by
> Darrell whether we should use the Sidorova chronology - because of
> hassle by you know who - so asked Tom a while ago to ask you. I did
> not see your answer - sorry if you cc'd me in as I have not been
> checking emails. I fully accept and would NEVER go behind your back to
> ask for the data. I understood that the chronology was published and
> so thought to compare our RCS version with it if we could produce it
> in time . We are being accused of not using that chronology in the
> Science paper- so then asked Anders for it. I am happy to send Darrell
> the single chronology if that is what Anders has sent. I am having to
> start thinking about the Yamal crap and then this Darrell stuff
> suddenly arises. I just wanted him to consider including the Polar
> Urals reconstruction and the Sidorova series in his analysis before
> publishing a correction in Science- apparently the selection criterion
> for inclusion of series was anything published north of 60 degrees and
> longer than 1000 years. I could do without all this now - don't really
> understand what Climate Audit are getting so hysterical about but feel
> that I can not ignore it this time - but don't feel up to getting
> involved. I fully admit to being out of the loop as regards all this
> and having trouble getting back to it.
>
> To restate - this was a confusion. I fully accept your point (as you
> know I would). Sorry if you thought I was doing anything without your
> knowledge - TO BE HONEST ALSO - I actually was not really  aware that
> the data you were producing and that used by Sidorova were one and the
> same. Best wishes hopefully all ok
> I assume that we are allowed to use the chronolgy as published - are
> we? I have not contacted Sidorova. Can you cc answer to Tom as I have
> no email at present. (this coming from someone elses computer)
> Keith
>
>
> At 16:50 02/10/2009, you wrote:
>> Dear Keith - I do hope your recovery continues apace, in spite of the
>> recent nonsense. I really have had no intention to bother you with
>> work stuff, and had  strongly encouraged Mike and Gavin to contact
>> Tim and/or Tom putting a response on RlCl. So, I'm really reticent to
>> raise something else, but must.
>> What's going on? 21st September I got an email from Tom M that
>> contained the following para, among other more general discussion:
>> "Keith has been complained at by Climate Audit for cherry picking and
>> not using your long Indigirka River data set. Not used because we did
>> not have the data. Please, could we have the data? We will make
>> proper aknowledgement/coauthorship if we use the data."
>> I replied pretty much straight away thus: "Hi Tom - please find the
>> Esper article in question attached. The so-called Indigirka River
>> data set is not yet available because it has not been  published. I
>> am currently working on that with Russian colleagues, and was indeed
>> in Switzerland the week before last to work with one of them on
>> specifically this. All being well, there will be an accepted
>> manuscript before next summer, and at that point I will make the data
>> freely available. Once we get to that point, I'll let you know, of
>> course. Cheers, Malcolm" .
>> So far, no direct response to this email from Tom.
>> This morning I get an email from Anders Moberg, telling me that you
>> had asked him for the "Indigirka data". I've waited a couple of hours
>> before writing this email so as to try to be constructive. To be sure
>> that you understand what that dataset is and is not, please  read the
>> attached 2006 Moberg corrigendum.
>> Once again, the actual data are unpublished, in spite of having been
>> discussed in the Russian literature by Siderova et al. A large
>> proportion of the raw data are not yet in the public domain, and so
>> you would not be able to critically evaluate the chronology as a
>> possible climate proxy. Why can that not be said - adequate metadata
>> not available, please see Moberg corrigendum? By the way, a 600-year
>> reconstruction is available (Hughes et al 1999, also attached), and
>> all those raw data are at the ITRDB.
>> As you know, it is my intention to friendly, cooperative and open,
>> but I'm determined to get some scientific value from all the years of
>> work I've invested in the Yakutia work, and in cooperation with
>> Russia in general. Releasing these data now would be too much.
>> Cheers, Malcolm
>>
>>
>> --
>> Malcolm K Hughes
>> Regents' Professor
>> Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
>> The University of Arizona
>> 105 W Stadium
>> Tucson, AZ 85721
>> USA
>>
>> tel: +1-520-621-6470
>> fax: +1-520-621-8229
>>
>> mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Professor Keith Briffa,
> Climatic Research Unit
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>
> Phone: +44-1603-593909
> Fax: +44-1603-507784
>
>


"
Dear Keith - I do hope your recovery continues apace, in spite of the recent nonsense. I
really have had no intention to bother you with work stuff, and had  strongly encouraged
Mike and Gavin to contact Tim and/or Tom putting a response on RlCl. So, I'm really
reticent to raise something else, but must.
What's going on? 21st September I got an email from Tom M that contained the following
para, among other more general discussion:
"Keith has been complained at by Climate Audit for cherry picking and not using your
long Indigirka River data set. Not used because we did not have the data. Please, could
we have the data? We will make proper aknowledgement/coauthorship if we use the data."
I replied pretty much straight away thus: "Hi Tom - please find the Esper article in
question attached. The so-called Indigirka River data set is not yet available because
it has not been  published. I am currently working on that with Russian colleagues, and
was indeed in Switzerland the week before last to work with one of them on specifically
this. All being well, there will be an accepted manuscript before next summer, and at
that point I will make the data freely available. Once we get to that point, I'll let
you know, of course. Cheers, Malcolm" .
So far, no direct response to this email from Tom.
This morning I get an email from Anders Moberg, telling me that you had asked him for
the "Indigirka data". I've waited a couple of hours before writing this email so as to
try to be constructive. To be sure that you understand what that dataset is and is not,
please  read the attached 2006 Moberg corrigendum.
Once again, the actual data are unpublished, in spite of having been discussed in the
Russian literature by Siderova et al. A large proportion of the raw data are not yet in
the public domain, and so you would not be able to critically evaluate the chronology as
a possible climate proxy. Why can that not be said - adequate metadata not available,
please see Moberg corrigendum? By the way, a 600-year reconstruction is available
(Hughes et al 1999, also attached), and all those raw data are at the ITRDB.
As you know, it is my intention to friendly, cooperative and open, but I'm determined to
get some scientific value from all the years of work I've invested in the Yakutia work,
and in cooperation with Russia in general. Releasing these data now would be too much.
Cheers, Malcolm
--
Malcolm K Hughes
Regents' Professor
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
The University of Arizona
105 W Stadium
Tucson, AZ 85721
USA
tel: +1-520-621-6470
fax: +1-520-621-8229
mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu
[2]
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.
2.


Malcolm
honestly just a cross thread between Tom and I.  I had been asked by
Darrell whether we should use the Sidorova chronology - because of
hassle by you know who - so asked Tom a while ago to ask you. I did
not see your answer - sorry if you cc'd me in as I have not been
checking emails. I fully accept and would NEVER go behind your back
to ask for the data. I understood that the chronology was published
and so thought to compare our RCS version with it if we could produce
it in time . We are being accused of not using that chronology in the
Science paper- so then asked Anders for it. I am happy to send
Darrell the single chronology if that is what Anders has sent. I am
having to start thinking about the Yamal crap and then this Darrell
stuff suddenly arises. I just wanted him to consider including the
Polar Urals reconstruction and the Sidorova series in his analysis
before publishing a correction in Science- apparently the selection
criterion for inclusion of series was anything published north of 60
degrees and longer than 1000 years. I could do without all this now -
don't really understand what Climate Audit are getting so hysterical
about but feel that I can not ignore it this time - but don't feel up
to getting involved. I fully admit to being out of the loop as
regards all this and having trouble getting back to it.
To restate - this was a confusion. I fully accept your point (as you
know I would). Sorry if you thought I was doing anything without your
knowledge - TO BE HONEST ALSO - I actually was not really  aware that
the data you were producing and that used by Sidorova were one and
the same. Best wishes hopefully all ok
I assume that we are allowed to use the chronolgy as published - are
we? I have not contacted Sidorova. Can you cc answer to Tom as I have
no email at present. (this coming from someone elses computer)
Keith
At 16:50 02/10/2009, you wrote:
>Dear Keith - I do hope your recovery continues apace, in spite of
>the recent nonsense. I really have had no intention to bother you
>with work stuff, and had  strongly encouraged Mike and Gavin to
>contact Tim and/or Tom putting a response on RlCl. So, I'm really
>reticent to raise something else, but must.
>What's going on? 21st September I got an email from Tom M that
>contained the following para, among other more general discussion:
>"Keith has been complained at by Climate Audit for cherry picking
>and not using your long Indigirka River data set. Not used because
>we did not have the data. Please, could we have the data? We will
>make proper aknowledgement/coauthorship if we use the data."
>I replied pretty much straight away thus: "Hi Tom - please find the
>Esper article in question attached. The so-called Indigirka River
>data set is not yet available because it has not been  published. I
>am currently working on that with Russian colleagues, and was indeed
>in Switzerland the week before last to work with one of them on
>specifically this. All being well, there will be an accepted
>manuscript before next summer, and at that point I will make the
>data freely available. Once we get to that point, I'll let you know,
>of course. Cheers, Malcolm" .
>So far, no direct response to this email from Tom.
>This morning I get an email from Anders Moberg, telling me that you
>had asked him for the "Indigirka data". I've waited a couple of
>hours before writing this email so as to try to be constructive. To
>be sure that you understand what that dataset is and is not,
>please  read the attached 2006 Moberg corrigendum.
>Once again, the actual data are unpublished, in spite of having been
>discussed in the Russian literature by Siderova et al. A large
>proportion of the raw data are not yet in the public domain, and so
>you would not be able to critically evaluate the chronology as a
>possible climate proxy. Why can that not be said - adequate metadata
>not available, please see Moberg corrigendum? By the way, a 600-year
>reconstruction is available (Hughes et al 1999, also attached), and
>all those raw data are at the ITRDB.
>As you know, it is my intention to friendly, cooperative and open,
>but I'm determined to get some scientific value from all the years
>of work I've invested in the Yakutia work, and in cooperation with
>Russia in general. Releasing these data now would be too much.
>Cheers, Malcolm
>
>
>--
>Malcolm K Hughes
>Regents' Professor
>Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
>The University of Arizona
>105 W Stadium
>Tucson, AZ 85721
>USA
>
>tel: +1-520-621-6470
>fax: +1-520-621-8229
>
>mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784


"
X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5045
Professor Briffa,
I have written a couple of blogs on the current report by Steve
McIntyre that the data used by Mann to "prove" the hockey Stick was fabricated. This & the
following day's
[5]
.
As a result I have received this email from somebody I am not aquainted with throwing
the entire blame on you. This seems improbable to me & possibly an alarmist damage
limitation exercise. If you wish to comment I would be happy for you to do so.
"Please note: Steve McIntyre's post concerns work by climate scientist Keith Briffa and
not Michael Mann. You will probably wish to correct your post.
Cheers
Avisame"
I have posted this as an update with my reply:
"My understanding is that while Briffa did the tree ring measurement, Mann, in his paper,
chose to choose 12 atypical tree rings out of at least 34 to fabricate the global warming
trend. My assumption is that Mann is responsible for fabrications in his own paper & that
this is a damage limitation exercise. I am open to correction on this & indeed have emailed
Mr Briffa to see. "
Neil Craig
You may be interested in my political blog
[6]
We received this through our enquiries desk.  I assume that you are aware of this person,
including those copied on the message.
If we are to respond, it would be to indicate that there are multiple sources of supporting
evidence and that we continue to place our confidence in the international scientific
assessment process.  This confidence has proven to be well placed.
Roger
_____________________________________________________________________
From: Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen
Date: 2 October 2009 18:09:39 GMT+01:00
To: Stephanie Ferguson
Cc: "Peiser, Benny"
, Patrick David Henderson
, Christopher Monckton
Subject: RE: Please take note of potetially serious  allegations of scientific
'fraud' by CRU and Met Office
Dear Stephanie
I expect that a great deal of UKCIP work is based on the data provided by CRU (as
does the work of the IPCC and  of course UK  climate policy). Some of this, very
fundamentally, would now seem to be open to scientific challenge, and may even face future
legal enquiries. It may be in the interest of UKCIP to inform itself in good time and
become a little more 'uncertain' about its policy advice.
Perhaps you can comment on the following and pass the allegations made on to the
relevant  people.
It is beyond my expertise to assess the claims made, but they would fit into my
perception of the whole 'man-made global warming' cum energy policy debate. I know several
of the  people involved personally and have no reason to doubt their sincerity and honour
as scientists, though I am also aware of their highly critical (of IPCC science) policy
positions.
I could also let you have statements by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. Ross
McKitrick currently teaches at Westminister Business School and who is fully informed about
the relevant issues. He recently addressed a meeting of about 50 people in London.
Best wishes
Sonja B-C
Dr.Sonja A.Boehmer-Christiansen
Reader Emeritus, Department of Geography
Hull University
Editor, Energy&Environment
Multi-Science ([12] www.multi-science.co.uk)
HULL HU6 7RX
Phone:(0044)1482 465369/465385
Fax: (0044) 1482 466340
TWO copied pieces follow, both relate to CRU and UK climate policy
a. THE MET OFFICE AND CRU'S YAMAL SCANDAL: EXPLAIN OR RESIGN
" Jennifer Marohasy
Leading UK Climate Scientists Must Explain or Resign, Jennifer Marohasy
[15] -
must-explain-or-resign/>
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    [16]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [17]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [18]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[19]
References
Visible links
1. mailto:CrgN143@aol.com
2. mailto:CrgN143@aol.com
3. mailto:d03.64b01875.37f87aa4@aol.com
4. mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk
5.
6.
7. mailto:Sonja.B-C@hull.ac.uk
8. mailto:stephanie.ferguson@ukcip.org.uk
9. mailto:B.J.Peiser@ljmu.ac.uk
10. mailto:pdhenderson18@googlemail.com
11. mailto:monckton@mail.com
12.
13. mailto:jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com
14.
15.
16. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
17. mailto:mann@psu.edu
18. ~mann/Mann/index.html
19.
Hidden links:
20.


Tom,
Thanks for trying to clear the air with a few people. Keith is still working on a
response. Having to contact the Russians to get some more site details takes time.
Several things in all this are ludicrous as you point out. Yamal is one site and isn't
in most of the millennial reconstructions. It isn't in MBH, Crowley, Moberg etc. Also
picking trees for a temperature response is not done either.
The other odd thing is that they seem to think that you can reconstruct the last
millennium from a few proxies, yet you can't do this from a few instrumental series for the
last 150 years!  Instrumental data are perfect proxies, after all.
[1]
This one is wrong as well. IPCC (1995) didn't use that silly curve that Chris Folland or
Geoff Jenkins put together.
Cheers
Phil
At 02:59 05/10/2009, you wrote:
David,
This is entirely off the record, and I do not want this shared with
anyone. I hope you will respect this. This issue is not my problem,
and I await further developments.
However, Keith Briffa is in the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), and I was
Director of CRU for many years so I am quite familiar with Keith and
with his work. I have also done a lots of hands on tree ring work, both
in the field and in developing and applying computer programs for
climate reconstruction from tree rings. On the other hand, I have not
been involved in any of this work since I left CRU in 1993 to move to
NCAR. But I do think I can speak with some modicum of authority.
You say, re dendoclimatologists, "they rely on recent temperature data by which to
*select* recent tree data" (my emphasis). I don't know where you get this idea, but I
can assure you that it is entirely wrong.
Further, I do not know the basis for your claim that "Dendrochonology
is a bankrupt approach". It is one of the few proxy data areas where rigorous
multivariate statistical tools are used and where reconstructions are carefully tested
on independent data.
Finally, the fact that scientists (in any field) do not willingly share their
hard-earned primary data implies that they have something to hide
has no logical basis.
Tom.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
David Schnare wrote:
Tom:
Briffa has already made a preliminary response and he failed to explain his selection
procedure.  Further, he refused to give up the data for several years, and was forced to
do so only when he submitted to a journal that demanded data archiving and actually
enforced the practice.
More significantly, Briffa's analysis is irrelevant.  Dendrochonology is a bankrupt
approach.  They admit that they cannot distiguish causal elements contributing to tree
ring size.  Further, they rely on recent temperature data by which to select recent tree
data (excluding other data) and then turn around and claim that the tree ring data
explains the recent temperature data.  If you can give a principled and reasoned defense
of Briffa (see the discussion on Watt's website) then go for it.  I'd be fascinated, as
would a rather large number of others.
None of this, of course, detracts for the need to do research on geoengineering.  David
Schnare
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Tom Wigley
>
wrote:
Dear all,
I think it would be wise to let Briffa respond to these
accusations before compounding them with unwarranted
extrapolations.
With regard to the Hockey Stick, it is highly unlikely that
a single site can be very important. M&M have made similar
accusations in the past and they have been shown, in the
peer-reviewed literature, to be ill-founded.
Two recent papers you should read are those in the attached
Word document (first pages only).
Tom.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Eugene I. Gordon wrote:
David:
I concede all of your points but add one other thought. It is my
grandchildren I worry about and I suspect their grand children
will find it exceedingly warm because sunspots will return and
carbon abatement is only a game; It wont happen significantly
in their lifetime AND IT WONT BE ENOUGH IN ANY CASE. HENCE _WE
WILL NEED A GEOENGINEERING SOLUTION_ COME WHAT MAY!
-gene
/Eugene I. Gordon/
/(908) 233 4677/
/euggordon@comcast.net/
/[3]www.germgardlighting.com/
*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com
] *On Behalf Of *David
Schnare
*Sent:* Sunday, October 04, 2009 10:49 AM
*Cc:* Alan White; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* [geo] Re: CCNet: A Scientific Scandal Unfolds
Gene:
I've been following this issue closely and this is what I take
away from it:
1)  Tree ring-based temperature reconstructions are fraught with
so much uncertainty, they have no value whatever.  It is
impossible to tease out the relative contributions of rainfall,
nutrients, temperature and access to sunlight.  Indeed a single
tree can, and apparently has, skewed the entire 20th century
temperature reconstruction.
2)  The IPCC peer review process is fundamentally flawed if a
lead author is able to both disregard and ignore criticisms of
his own work, where that work is the critical core of the
chapter.  It not only destroys the credibility of the core
assumptions and data, it destroys the credibility of the larger
work - in this case, the IPCC summary report and the underlying
technical reports.  It also destroys the utility and credibility
of the modeling efforts that use assumptions on the relationship
of CO2 to temperature that are based on Britta's work, which is,
of course, the majority of such analyses.
As Corcoran points out, "the IPCC has depended on 1) computer
models, 2) data collection, 3) long-range temperature
forecasting and 4) communication. None of these efforts are
sitting on firm ground."
Nonetheless, and even if the UNEP thinks it appropriate to rely
on Wikipedia as their scientific source of choice, greenhouse
gases may (at an ever diminishing probability) cause a
significant increase in global temperature.  Thus, research,
including field trials, on the leading geoengineering techniques
are appropriate as a backstop in case our children find out that
the current alarmism is justified.
David Schnare
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Eugene I. Gordon
>>
wrote:
Alan:
Thanks for the extensive and detailed e-mail. This is terrible
but not surprising. Obviously I do not know what gives with
these guys. However, I have my own suspicions and hypothesis. I
dont think they are scientifically inadequate or stupid. I
think they are dishonest and members of a club that has much to
gain by practicing and perpetuating global warming scare
tactics. That is not to say that global warming is not occurring
to some extent since it would be even without CO2 emissions. The
CO2 emissions only accelerate the warming and there are other
factors controlling climate. As a result, the entire process may
be going slower than the powers that be would like. Hence, (I
postulate) the global warming contingent has substantial
motivation to be dishonest or seriously biased, and to be loyal
to their equally dishonest club members. Among the motivations
are increased and continued grant funding, university
advancement, job advancement, profits and payoffs from carbon
control advocates such as Gore, being in the limelight, and
other motivating factors I am too inexperienced to identify.
Alan, this is nothing new. You and I experienced similar
behavior from some of our colleagues down the hall, the Bell
Labs research people, in the good old days. Humans are hardly
perfect creations. I am never surprised at what they can do. _I
am perpetually grateful for those who are honest and fair and
thankfully there is a goodly share of those._
-gene
*From:* Alan White [mailto:adwhite99@comcast.net
>]
*Sent:* Saturday, October 03, 2009 8:28 PM
*To:* Gene Gordon
*Subject:* Fw: CCNet: A Scientific Scandal Unfolds
more of the same.   what gives with these guys?
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Peiser, Benny
>
*To:* CCNetMedia
>
*Sent:* Friday, October 02, 2009 6:36 AM
*Subject:* CCNet: A Scientific Scandal Unfolds
CCNet 153/2009 - 2 October 2009 -- Audiatur et altera pars
CRU'S HIDDEN DATA AND THE IPCC: A SCIENTIFIC SCANDAL UNFOLDS
------------------------------------------------------------
A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent
peer-reviewed climate papers. The scandal has serious
implications for
public trust in science. The IPCC's mission is to reflect the
science,
not create it. As the IPCC states, its duty is "assessing the
scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the
understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. It
does not
carry out new research nor does it monitor climate-related
data." But as
IPCC lead author, Briffa was a key contributor in shaping the
assessment. When the IPCC was alerted to peer-reviewed research that
refuted the idea, it declined to include it. This leads to the more
general, and more serious issue: what happens when peer-review
fails -
as it did here?
--Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 29 September 2009
Over the next nine years, at least one paper per year appeared in
prominent journals using Briffa's Yamal composite to support a
hockey
stick-like result. The IPCC relied on these studies to defend
the Hockey
Stick view, and since it had appointed Briffa himself to be the IPCC
Lead Author for this topic, there was no chance it would
question the
Yamal data. Despite the fact that these papers appeared in top
journals
like Nature and Science, none of the journal reviewers or
editors ever
required Briffa to release his Yamal data. Steve McIntyre's repeated
requests for them to uphold their own data disclosure rules were
ignored.
--Ross McKitrick, Financial Post, 1 October 2009
The official United Nation's global warming agency, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is a four-legged
stool that
is fast losing its legs.  To carry the message of man-made global
warming theory to the world, the IPCC has depended on 1) computer
models, 2) data collection, 3) long-range temperature
forecasting and 4)
communication. None of these efforts are sitting on firm ground.
--Terence Corcoran, National Post, 1 October 2009
Media reaction to the Yamal story has been rather limited so
far. I'm
not sure whether this is because people are trying to digest what it
means or whether it's "too hot to handle". None of the global
warming
supporters in the mainstream media have gone near it. The
reaction of
the Guardian - to delete any mention of the affair from their
comment
threads - has been extraordinary.
--Bishop Hill, 1 October 2009
Britain will have to stop building airports, switch to electric
cars and
shut down coal-fired power stations as part of a 'planned
recession' to
avoid dangerous climate change. A new report from the Tyndall
Centre for
Climate Change Research says the only way to avoid going beyond the
dangerous tipping point is to double the target to 70 per cent
by 2020.
This would mean reducing the size of the economy through a "planned
recession".
--Louise Gray, The Daily Telegraph, 30 September 2009
Tokyo governor Shintaro Ishihara warned on Wednesday the 2016
Olympics
could be the last Games, with global warming an immediate threat to
mankind. "It could be that the 2016 Games are the last Olympics
in the
history of mankind," Ishihara told reporters at a Tokyo 2016
press event
ahead of the vote. "Global warming is getting worse. We have to
come up
with measures without which Olympic Games could not last long.
"Scientists have said we have passed the point of no return," said
Ishihara.
--Karolos Grohmann, Reuters, 30 September 2009
(1) TREEMOMETERS: A NEW SCIENTIFIC SCANDAL
Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 29 September 2009
(2) ANALYSIS: DEFECTS IN KEY CLIMATE DATA ARE UNCOVERED
Ross McKitrick, Financial Post, 1 October 2009
(3) OPINION: CLIMATE DATA BUSTER
Terence Corcoran, National Post, 1 October 2009
(4) OPINION: COOLING DOWN THE CASSANDRAS
George F. Will, The Washington Post, 1 October 2009
(5) U.S. THROWS SPANNER INTO CLIMATE TALKS
Times of India, 2 October 2009
(6) CAP AND TRADE MAY SINK OPPOSITION LEADER DOWN UNDER
Lenore Taylor, The Australian, 2 October 2009
(7) THE MET OFFICE AND CRU'S YAMAL SCANDAL: EXPLAIN OR RESIGN
Jennifer Marohasy
>>
(8) COOLING?
Rodney Chilton
>>
(9) RESOURCES DEPLETION WORRIES
Steven Zoraster
>>
(10) COPENHAGEN SUMMIT: DO SCIENCE AND ECONOMICS SUPPORT GOVERNMENT
ACTION ON GLOBAL WARMING?
Peter Kidson
>]
(11) A DEATH SPIRAL FOR CLIMATE ALARMISM?
Robert Bradley
>>
(12) AND FINALLY: 'PLANNED RECESSION' COULD AVOID CATASTROPHIC
CLIMATE
CHANGE
Louise Gray, The Daily Telegraph, 30 September 2009
===========
(1) TREEMOMETERS: A NEW SCIENTIFIC SCANDAL
The Register, 29 September 2009
By Andrew Orlowski
A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent
peer-reviewed climate papers.
At least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical
temperature record times may need to be revisited, with significant
implications for contemporary climate studies, the basis of the
IPCC's
assessments. A number of these involve senior climatologists at the
British climate research centre CRU at the University East
Anglia. In
every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors.
At issue is the use of tree rings as a temperature proxy, or
dendrochronology. Using statistical techniques, researchers take the
ring data to create a "reconstruction" of historical temperature
anomalies. But trees are a highly controversial indicator of
temperature, since the rings principally record Co2, and also record
humidity, rainfall, nutrient intake and other local factors.
Picking a temperature signal out of all this noise is
problematic, and a
dendrochronology can differ significantly from instrumented data. In
dendro jargon, this disparity is called "divergence". The process of
creating a raw data set also involves a selective use of samples - a
choice open to a scientist's biases.
Yet none of this has stopped paleoclimataologists from making bold
claims using tree ring data.
In particular, since 2000, a large number of peer-reviewed climate
papers have incorporated data from trees at the Yamal Peninsula in
Siberia. This dataset gained favour, curiously superseding a
newer and
larger data set from nearby. The older Yamal trees indicated
pronounced
and dramatic uptick in temperatures.
How could this be? Scientists have ensured much of the
measurement data
used in the reconstructions remains a secret - failing to fulfill
procedures to archive the raw data. Without the raw data, other
scientists could not reproduce the results. The most prestigious
peer
reviewed journals, including Nature and Science, were reluctant to
demand the data from contributors. Until now, that is.
At the insistence of editors of the Royal Society's Philosophical
Transactions B the data has leaked into the open - and Yamal's
mystery
is no more.
>From this we know that the Yamal data set uses just 12 trees
from a
larger set to produce its dramatic recent trend. Yet many more were
cored, and a larger data set (of 34) from the vicinity shows no
dramatic
recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the middle ages.
In all there are 252 cores in the CRU Yamal data set, of which
ten were
alive 1990. All 12 cores selected show strong growth since the
mid-19th
century. The implication is clear: the dozen were cherry-picked.
Controversy has been raging since 1995, when an explosive paper
by Keith
Briffa at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia
asserted that that the medieval warm period was actually really
cold,
and recent warming is unusually warm. Both archaeology and the
historical accounts, Briffa was declaring, were bunk. Briffa
relied on
just three cores from Siberia to demonstrate this.
Three years later Nature published a paper by Mann, Bradley and
Hughes
based on temperature reconstructions which showed something similar:
warmer now, cooler then. With Briffa and Mann as chapter editors
of the
UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), this
distinctive
pattern became emblematic - the "Logo of Global Warming".
IPCC's Assessment Report from 2001 - with the error bars in grey
emphasised
Hokey hockey sticks
Mann too used dendrochronology to chill temperatures, and rebuffed
attempts to publish his measurement data. Initially he said he had
forgotten where he put it, then declined to disclosed it. (Some of
Mann's data was eventually discovered, by accident, on his ftp
server in
a directory entitled 'BACKTO_1400-CENSORED'.)
Tree data was secondary in importance to Mann's statistical
technique,
which would produce a dramatic modern upturn in temperatures - which
became nicknamed the "Hockey Stick" - even using red noise.
Similarly, all the papers that used the Yamal data have the same
point
to make. All suggest recent dramatic warming. Having scored a
global hit
with a combination of flawed statistics and dubious
dendrochronology,
the acts repeated the formula.
"Late 20th century warmth is unprecedented for at least roughly
the past
two millennia for the Northern Hemisphere," wrote the two authors of
Global Surface Temperatures over the Past Two Millennia published in
Geophysical Research Letters in 2003 - Mann, and Phil Jones of CRU.
For example, Briffa's 2008 paper concludes that: "The extent of
recent
widespread warming across northwest Eurasia, with respect to 100- to
200-year trends, is unprecedented in the last 2000 years."
The same authors in 2004:
It continues to this day. A study purporting to show the Arctic was
warmer now than for 2,000 years received front-page attention last
month. Led by Northern Arizona University professor Darrell S
Kaufman,
and including dendro veteran Mann, this too relied heavily on
Yamal, and
produced the signature shape.
Now here's Yamal.
And when Yamal is plotted against the wider range of cores, the
implications of the choice is striking:
A comparison of Yamal RCS chronologies. red - as archived with
12 picked
cores; black - including Schweingruber's Khadyta River, Yamal
(russ035w)
archive and excluding 12 picked cores. Both smoothed with 21-year
gaussian smooth. y-axis is in dimensionless chronology units
centered on
1 (as are subsequent graphs (but represent age-adjusted ring width).
"The majority of these trees (like the Graybill bristlecones) have a
prolonged growth pulse (for whatever reason) starting in the 19th
century," wrote Canadian mathematician Steve McIntyre on his blog on
Sunday. "When a one-size fits all age profile is applied to these
particular tries, the relatively vigorous growth becomes monster
growth
- 8 sigma anomalies in some of them."
McIntyre's determination to reproduce the reconstructions has
resulted
in the Yamal data finally coming to light.
All the papers come from a small but closely knit of scientists who
mutually support each other's work. All use Yamal data.
What went wrong?
The scandal has serious implications for public trust in
science. The
IPCC's mission is to reflect the science, not create it.
As the panel states, its duty is "assessing the scientific,
technical
and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of
the risk
of human-induced climate change. It does not carry out new
research nor
does it monitor climate-related data." But as lead author,
Briffa was a
key contributor in shaping (no pun intended) the assessment.
When the IPCC was alerted to peer-reviewed research that refuted the
idea, it declined to include it. This leads to the more general, and
more serious issue: what happens when peer-review fails - as it did
here?
The scandal has only come to light because of the dogged
persistence of
a Canadian mathematician who attempted to reproduce the results.
Steve
McIntyre has written dozens of letters requesting the data and
methodology, and over 7,000 blog posts. Yet Yamal has remained
elusive
for almost a decade. (r)
Bootnote
The Royal Society's motto from the enlightenment era is Nullius in
verba. "On nobody's authority" or colloquially, "take nobody's
word for
it". In 2007, the Society's then president suggested this be
changed to
"respect the facts".
Copyright 2009, ElReg
==========
(2) ANALYSIS: DEFECTS IN KEY CLIMATE DATA ARE UNCOVERED
Financial Post, 1 October 2009
oss-mckitrick-defects-in-key-climate-data-are-uncovered.aspx>
By Ross McKitrick
Beginning in 2003, I worked with Stephen McIntyre to replicate a
famous
result in paleoclimatology known as the Hockey Stick graph.
Developed by
a U.S. climatologist named Michael Mann, it was a statistical
compilation of tree ring data supposedly proving that air
temperatures
had been stable for 900 years, then soared off the charts in the
20th
century. Prior to the publication of the Hockey Stick,
scientists had
held that the medieval-era was warmer than the present, making
the scale
of 20th century global warming seem relatively unimportant. The
dramatic
revision to this view occasioned by the Hockey Stick's
publication made
it the poster child of the global warming movement. It was featured
prominently in a 2001 report of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), as well as government websites and countless
review reports.
Steve and I showed that the mathematics behind the Mann Hockey Stick
were badly flawed, such that its shape was determined by suspect
bristlecone tree ring data. Controversies quickly piled up: Two
expert
panels involving the U.S. National Academy of Sciences were asked to
investigate, the U.S. Congress held a hearing, and the media
followed
the story around the world.
The expert reports upheld all of our criticisms of the Mann Hockey
Stick, both of the mathematics and of its reliance on flawed
bristlecone
pine data. One of the panels, however, argued that while the
Mann Hockey
Stick itself was flawed, a series of other studies published
since 1998
had similar shapes, thus providing support for the view that the
late
20th century is unusually warm. The IPCC also made this argument
in its
2007 report. But the second expert panel, led by statistician Edward
Wegman, pointed out that the other studies are not independent.
They are
written by the same small circle of authors, only the names are in
different orders, and they reuse the same few data climate proxy
series
over and over.
Most of the proxy data does not show anything unusual about the 20th
century. But two data series have reappeared over and over that
do have
a hockey stick shape. One was the flawed bristlecone data that the
National Academy of Sciences panel said should not be used, so the
studies using it can be set aside. The second was a tree ring
curve from
the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia, compiled by UK scientist Keith
Briffa.
Briffa had published a paper in 1995 claiming that the medieval
period
actually contained the coldest year of the millennium. But this
claim
depended on just three tree ring records (called cores) from the
Polar
Urals. Later, a colleague of his named F. H. Schweingruber
produced a
much larger sample from the Polar Urals, but it told a very
different
story: The medieval era was actually quite warm and the late 20th
century was unexceptional. Briffa and Schweingruber never published
those data, instead they dropped the Polar Urals altogether from
their
climate reconstruction papers.
In its place they used a new series that Briffa had calculated
from tree
ring data from the nearby Yamal Peninsula that had a pronounced
Hockey
Stick shape: relatively flat for 900 years then sharply rising
in the
20th century. This Yamal series was a composite of an
undisclosed number
of individual tree cores. In order to check the steps involved in
producing the composite, it would be necessary to have the
individual
tree ring measurements themselves. But Briffa didn't release his raw
data.
Over the next nine years, at least one paper per year appeared in
prominent journals using Briffa's Yamal composite to support a
hockey
stick-like result. The IPCC relied on these studies to defend
the Hockey
Stick view, and since it had appointed Briffa himself to be the IPCC
Lead Author for this topic, there was no chance it would
question the
Yamal data.
Despite the fact that these papers appeared in top journals like
Nature
and Science, none of the journal reviewers or editors ever required
Briffa to release his Yamal data. Steve McIntyre's repeated
requests for
them to uphold their own data disclosure rules were ignored.
Then in 2008 Briffa, Schweingruber and some colleagues published
a paper
using the Yamal series (again) in a journal called the Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society, which has very strict
data-sharing
rules. Steve sent in his customary request for the data, and
this time
an editor stepped up to the plate, ordering the authors to
release their
data. A short while ago the data appeared on the Internet. Steve
could
finally begin to unpack the Yamal composite.
It turns out that many of the samples were taken from dead
(partially
fossilized) trees and they have no particular trend. The sharp
uptrend
in the late 20th century came from cores of 10 living trees
alive as of
1990, and five living trees alive as of 1995. Based on scientific
standards, this is too small a sample on which to produce a
publication-grade proxy composite. The 18th and 19th century
portion of
the sample, for instance, contains at least 30 trees per year.
But that
portion doesn't show a warming spike. The only segment that does
is the
late 20th century, where the sample size collapses. Once again a
dramatic hockey stick shape turns out to depend on the least
reliable
portion of a dataset.
But an even more disquieting discovery soon came to light. Steve
searched a paleoclimate data archive to see if there were other tree
ring cores from at or near the Yamal site that could have been
used to
increase the sample size. He quickly found a large set of 34
up-to-date
core samples, taken from living trees in Yamal by none other than
Schweingruber himself! Had these been added to Briffa's small
group the
20th century would simply be flat. It would appear completely
unexceptional compared to the rest of the millennium.
Combining data from different samples would not have been an unusual
step. Briffa added data from another Schweingruber site to a
different
composite, from the Taimyr Peninsula. The additional data were
gathered
more than 400 km away from the primary site. And in that case the
primary site had three or four times as many cores to begin with
as the
Yamal site. Why did he not fill out the Yamal data with the
readily-available data from his own coauthor? Why did Briffa
seek out
additional data for the already well-represented Taimyr site and
not for
the inadequate Yamal site?
Thus the key ingredient in most of the studies that have been
invoked to
support the Hockey Stick, namely the Briffa Yamal series,
depends on the
influence of a woefully thin subsample of trees and the exclusion of
readily-available data for the same area. Whatever is going on
here, it
is not science.
I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a
decade. In collaboration with a lot of excellent coauthors I have
consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what
lies at
the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent. The
surface temperature data is a contaminated mess with a
significant warm
bias, and as I have detailed elsewhere the IPCC fabricated
evidence in
its 2007 report to cover up the problem. Climate models are in gross
disagreement with observations, and the discrepancy is growing
with each
passing year. The often-hyped claim that the modern climate has
departed
from natural variability depended on flawed statistical methods and
low-quality data. The IPCC review process, of which I was a
member last
time, is nothing at all like what the public has been told:
Conflicts of
interest are endemic, critical evidence is systematically
ignored and
there are no effective checks and balances against bias or
distortion.
I get exasperated with fellow academics, and others who ought to
know
better, who pile on to the supposed global warming consensus without
bothering to investigate any of the glaring scientific
discrepancies and
procedural flaws. Over the coming few years, as the costs of global
warming policies mount and the evidence of a crisis continues to
collapse, perhaps it will become socially permissible for people to
start thinking for themselves again. In the meantime I am
grateful for
those few independent thinkers, like Steve McIntyre, who
continue to ask
the right questions and insist on scientific standards of
openness and
transparency.
Ross McKitrick is a professor of environmental economics at the
University of Guelph, and coauthor of Taken By Storm: The Troubled
Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming.
Copyright 2009, FP
EDITOR'S NOTE: More on the CRU's Yamal scandal and its impact, see:
-tree-ring-affair-plus-rebuttal/>
ml>
nues.html>
============
(3) OPINION: CLIMATE DATA BUSTER
National Post, 1 October 2009
/terence-corcoran-climate-data-buster.aspx>
By Terence Corcoran
The official United Nation's global warming agency, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is a four-legged
stool that
is fast losing its legs.  To carry the message of man-made global
warming theory to the world, the IPCC has depended on 1) computer
models, 2) data collection, 3) long-range temperature
forecasting and 4)
communication. None of these efforts are sitting on firm ground.
Over the past month, one of the IPCC's top climate scientists, Mojib
Latif, attempted to explain that even if global temperatures were to
cool over the next 10 to 20 years, that would not mean that man-made
global warming is no longer catastrophic. It was a tough case to
make,
and it is not clear Mr. Latif succeeded. In a presentation to a
world
climate conference in early September, Mr. Latif rambled
somewhat and
veered off into inscrutable language that is now embedded in a
million
blog posts attempting to prove one thing or another.
A sample: "It may well happen that you enter a decade, or maybe even
two, you know, when the temperature cools, all right, relative
to the
present level...And then, you know, I know what's going to
happen. You
know, I will get, you know, millions of phone calls, you know
-'What's
going on?' 'So is global warming disappearing, you know?' 'Have
you lied
on us, you know?' So, and, therefore, this is the reason why we
need to
address this decadal prediction issue."
The decadal prediction issue appears to be a combination of computer
model problems, the unpredictability of natural climate
variation, and
assorted uncertainties. Making all this clear to the average global
citizen will not be easy and climate scientists need to be able
to make
it clear, said Mr. Latif. "We have to ask the nasty questions
ourselves,
all right, or some other people will do it."
All this is still swirling around the global climate issue
today. But
now along comes another problem. Canadian data buster Steve
McIntyre has
spend most of the last three years deconstructing the IPCC's famous
claim that the last couple of decades of the 20th century were the
hottest in a thousand years. Using what was called The Hockey Stick
graph, the IPCC claimed to have the smoking gun that showed a
sharp run
up in global temperatures through to 1997. The validity of the
IPCC data
began to crumble when Mr. McIntyre and Ross McKitrick of Guelph
University found serious data problems that raised doubts about the
graph and the claims of record high temperatures.
As Ross McKitrick explains in his op-ed, Steve McIntyre has
uncovered
another data distortion that further undermines the original graphic
claim that the world has set temperature records in recent years. If
world temperatures may have been just as hot in the past as they
have
been recently, and if the the next two decades could be cooler
than they
have been recently, the theory of climate change becomes an even
tougher
case to make.
The IPCC is now on wobbly legs at all four corners. Its models are
inadequate and need overhaul, data integrity is at issue, the
climate is
not quite following the script, and the communication program
for the
whole campaign is a growing struggle.
Copyright 2009, NP
==========
(4) OPINION: COOLING DOWN THE CASSANDRAS
The Washington Post, 1 October 2009
93003569.html>
By George F. Will
"Plateau in Temperatures Adds Difficulty to Task Of Reaching a
Solution"
--New York Times, Sept. 23
In this headline on a New York Times story about the difficulties
confronting people alarmed about global warming, note the word
"plateau." It dismisses the unpleasant -- to some people -- fact
that
global warming is maddeningly (to the same people) slow to vindicate
their apocalyptic warnings about it.
The "difficulty" -- the "intricate challenge," the Times says -- is
"building momentum" for carbon reduction "when global
temperatures have
been relatively stable for a decade and may even drop in the
next few
years." That was in the Times's first paragraph.
In the fifth paragraph, a "few years" became "the next decade or
so,"
according to Mojib Latif, a German "prize-winning climate and ocean
scientist" who campaigns constantly to promote policies
combating global
warming. Actually, Latif has said he anticipates "maybe even two"
decades in which temperatures cool. But stay with the Times's
"decade or
so."
By asserting that the absence of significant warming since 1998 is a
mere "plateau," not warming's apogee, the Times assures readers
who are
alarmed about climate change that the paper knows the future and
that
warming will continue: Do not despair, bad news will resume.
The Times reported that "scientists" -- all of them? -- say the
11 years
of temperature stability has "no bearing," none, on long-term
warming.
Some scientists say "cool stretches are inevitable." Others say
there
may be growth of Arctic sea ice, but the growth will be "temporary."
According to the Times, however, "scientists" say that "trying to
communicate such scientific nuances to the public -- and to
policymakers
-- can be frustrating."
The Times says "a short-term trend gives ammunition to skeptics of
climate change." Actually, what makes skeptics skeptical is the
accumulating evidence that theories predicting catastrophe from
man-made
climate change are impervious to evidence. The theories are
unfalsifiable, at least in the "short run." And the "short run" is
defined as however many decades must pass until the evidence
begins to
fit the hypotheses.
The Post recently reported the theory of a University of Virginia
professor emeritus who thinks that, many millennia ago, primitive
agriculture -- burning forests, creating methane-emitting rice
paddies,
etc. -- produced enough greenhouse gases to warm the planet at
least a
degree. The theory is interesting. Even more interesting is the
reaction
to it by people such as the Columbia University professor who
says it
makes him "really upset" because it might encourage opponents of
legislation combating global warming.
Warnings about cataclysmic warming increase in stridency as
evidence of
warming becomes more elusive. A recent report from the United
Nations
Environment Program predicts an enormous 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit
increase
by the end of the century even if nations fulfill their most
ambitious
pledges concerning reduction of carbon emissions. The U.S. goal
is an 80
percent reduction by 2050. But Steven Hayward of the American
Enterprise
Institute says that would require reducing greenhouse gas
emissions to
the 1910 level. On a per capita basis, it would mean emissions
approximately equal to those in 1875.
That will not happen. So, we are doomed. So, why try?
America needs a national commission appointed to assess the evidence
about climate change. Alarmists will fight this because the first
casualty would be the carefully cultivated and media-reinforced
myth of
consensus -- the bald assertion that no reputable scientist
doubts the
gravity of the crisis, doubts being conclusive evidence of
disreputable
motives or intellectual qualifications. The president, however,
could
support such a commission because he is sure "there's finally
widespread
recognition of the urgency of the challenge before us." So he
announced
last week at the U.N. climate change summit, where he said the
threat is
so "serious" and "urgent" that unless all nations act "boldly,
swiftly
and together" -- "time . . . is running out" -- we risk
"irreversible
catastrophe." Prince Charles agrees. In March, seven months ago,
he said
humanity had 100 months -- until July 2017 -- to prevent
"catastrophic
climate change and the unimaginable horrors that this would bring."
Evidently humanity will prevent this.
Charles Moore of the Spectator notes that in July, the prince
said that
by 2050 the planet will be imperiled by the existence of 9 billion
people, a large portion of them consuming as much as Western
people now
do. Environmental Cassandras must be careful with their
predictions lest
they commit what climate alarmists consider the unpardonable
faux pas of
denying that the world is coming to an end.
Copyright 2009, WP
==============
(5) U.S. THROWS SPANNER INTO CLIMATE TALKS
Times of India, 2 October 2009
hrows-spanner-into-climate-talks/articleshow/5079332.cms>
Nitin Sethi, TNN
NEW DELHI: The promise of a deal at Copenhagen seem to be
turning into a
pipedream as the US has refused to put down hard numbers for
mitigation
under the second phase of Kyoto Protocol at the ongoing climate
negotiations at Bangkok. EU too seems to be taking a deal-breaking
condition saying, "environmental integrity" was central to the
UN treaty
and "equity" of different countries' rights was just one element.
The negotiations at various levels seem to be grinding into a logjam
with US determined not to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol. The US
negotiators fought hard at different forums within the UN talks
to block
any progress on industrialized countries' commitments to reduce
emissions in the mid-term under the second phase of Kyoto Protocol.
India stood steadfast in demanding that the rich countries put
up their
offers in terms of hard numbers for emission reductions over
2012-2020
under the existing protocol. But, US and many other developed
countries
seemed determined to do away with the Kyoto Protocol entirely.
This is not the first time that US has voiced its opposition to the
Kyoto Protocol which demands quantified targets from rich
countries. US
had not signed on to Kyoto earlier and it continues to oppose
the only
tool the global treaty has for making measurable and comparable
reductions in the dangerous greenhouse gases.
The protocol is also seen by a select band of industrialized
countries
such as US and Japan as a wall of differentiation constructed in the
convention. The parent treaty -- UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change -- lays most of the burden of mitigation on the
industrialized
countries that caused it in the first place. The Kyoto Protocol
activates this principle of burden sharing into hard actions and
targets. The protocol in its first phase sets fixed percentages
by which
countries reduce their emissions by 2012 below 1990 levels.
Many of the industrialized countries have not moved on a
trajectory to
achieve the targets for 2012. Part of the discussions in the UN
talks
have been to set a higher level targets for the second phase of
Kyoto
Protocol between 2012-2020.
But the US, not keen to take on any commitments in the mid-term, has
always shown interest in disbanding with Kyoto Protocol and instead
taking on a series of actions that are decided by countries on
their own
-- say energy efficiency targets -- and merely presented to the UN
forum. India and developing countries have pointed out that
would make
the targets incomparable and render it impossible to figure out
if any
significant reductions have been made in emissions to prevent a
climate
calamity.
Other industrialized countries too have so far shown little
interest in
offering credible and robust targets for the second phase of the
protocol. The offers so far on the table from the industrialized
countries, if implemented, would only bring in reductions in the
range
of 11-18% by 2020 below 1990 levels. India and other developing
countries have demanded that the industrialized countries follow the
recommendations of the UN climate science panel -- IPCC -- and
take cuts
in the range of 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 which would put the
world on a trajectory to avoid temperatures reaching dangerous
levels in
the decades to come.
Copyright 2009, TOI
=============
(6) CAP AND TRADE MAY SINK OPPOSITION LEADER DOWN UNDER
The Australian, 2 October 2009
l>
Lenore Taylor, National correspondent | October 02, 2009
MALCOLM Turnbull is on a collision course with his own back
bench after
staking his leadership on a demand that they back his climate change
strategy. Several MPs immediately refused to do so.
If the partyroom refused to back his strategy of negotiating
amendments
to the government's emissions trading scheme, Mr Turnbull said
yesterday, the Coalition would "literally be a party with
nothing to say
... a party with no ideas", and that was "not the party I am
prepared to
lead".
Throwing down the gauntlet to his internal critics, Mr Turnbull
said: "I
am asserting my authority as the leader of the Liberal Party and the
Leader of the Opposition."
"If the partyroom were to reject my recommendation to them, that
would
obviously be a leadership issue. That's perfectly plain, perfectly
clear," he told ABC Radio in Adelaide.
"I could not possibly lead a party that was on a
do-nothing-on-climate-change platform."
His critics were not cowed, despite the fact that both mooted
leadership
alternatives -- Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott -- support Mr Turnbull's
stance.
West Australian backbencher Wilson Tuckey said: "Mr Turnbull has
made
the ETS a leadership issue and we will now treat it as such." His
leader's ultimatum did not alter his "total opposition to an ETS
and to
the suggestion that we might amend it".
Victorian Liberal senator Julian McGauran said he stood by his
vow to
vote against the ETS in November, no matter what amendments were
negotiated.
Nationals senators also remain implacably opposed to the scheme. "He
hasn't got the partyroom with him on this one ... we are going
to stand
up for what we believe in," said senator Ron Boswell.
"This is not just another issue. This is not one we can let go
through
to the keeper," said senator Barnaby Joyce.
Mr Tuckey appeared to suggest Mr Turnbull's deputy, Julie
Bishop, as an
alternative leader, saying there were "many good potential
leaders in
the Liberal Party ... and perhaps some people who have had their
reputations tarnished by backgrounding from our side now deserve
reconsideration for the top job".
FULL STORY at
l>
======== e-mails to the editor =====
(7) THE MET OFFICE AND CRU'S YAMAL SCANDAL: EXPLAIN OR RESIGN
Jennifer Marohasy
>>
Leading UK Climate Scientists Must Explain or Resign, Jennifer
Marohasy
must-explain-or-resign/>
MOST scientific sceptics have been dismissive of the various
reconstructions of temperature which suggest 1998 is the warmest
year of
the past millennium. Our case has been significantly bolstered
over the
last week with statistician Steve McIntyre finally getting access to
data used by Keith Briffa, Tim Osborn and Phil Jones to support
the idea
that there has been an unprecedented upswing in temperatures
over the
last hundred years - the infamous hockey stick graph.
Mr McIntyre's analysis of the data - which he had been asking
for since
2003 - suggests that scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the
United Kingdom's Bureau of Meteorology have been using only a small
subset of the available data to make their claims that recent
years have
been the hottest of the last millennium. When the entire data set is
used, Mr McIntyre claims that the hockey stick shape disappears
completely. [1]
Mr McIntyre has previously showed problems with the mathematics
behind
the 'hockey stick'. But scientists at the Climate Research
Centre, in
particular Dr Briffa, have continuously republished claiming the
upswing
in temperatures over the last 100 years is real and not an
artifact of
the methodology used - as claimed by Mr McIntyre. However, these
same
scientists have denied Mr McIntyre access to all the data.
Recently they
were forced to make more data available to Mr McIntyre after they
published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society - a
journal which
unlike Nature and Science has strict policies on data archiving
which it
enforces.   This week's claims by Steve McInyre that scientists
associated with the
UK Meteorology Bureau have been less than diligent are serious and
suggest some of the most defended building blocks of the case for
anthropogenic global warming are based on the indefensible when the
methodology is laid bare.
This sorry saga also raises issues associated with how data is
archived
at the UK Meteorological Bureau with in complete data sets that
spuriously support the case for global warming being promoted while
complete data sets are kept hidden from the public -  including from
scientific sceptics like Steve McIntyre.
It is indeed time leading scientists at the Climate Research Centre
associated with the UK Meteorological Bureau explain how Mr
McIntyre is
in error or resign.
[1] Yamal: A "Divergence" Problem, by Steve McIntyre, 27
September 2009
[47]
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD
================
(8) COOLING?
Rodney Chilton
>>
Dear Benny:
Recently, there has been considerable discussion concerning the
slight
cooling of the earth's overall climate since about 2005. The
result of
the cooling has brought some scientists into the forefront to be
openly
critical of the still prominent view that climate changes over the
century or so have predominately been man caused. The proponents of
human initiated climate changes are of the opinion that the recent
cooling is but a temporary interruption in what soon again will be a
rapid climate warming.
I think one of the keys to alleviate some of this discussion is to
attempt to determine the triggers for two other climate shifts in
earlier times. The first of these, the "Little Ice Age" is generally
regarded by most scientists as resulting from a reduced output
of energy
from the sun. Coinciding as it did with an interval of very
little to
almost no sunspot activity, a time known as the "Maunder
Minimum", many
solar scientists suggest that as little as 0.25% decrease in solar
output initiated this cold climate period. Similarily, during
the mid
20th Century during the years from the end of the 1940's to
about the
mid 1970's, the sun was in one of its quiet modes (very few
sunspots).
The cause for what was a slightly cooler interval could logically be
linked to decreased energy from the sun. However, the quite recent
thirty year period is more commonly linked to increased dust in the
earth's atmosphere. Consistent with this view is the idea that
perhaps
the Little Ice Age too, was forced not by a decrease in the sun's
output, but by an increase in dust, not that produced by man, but by
extraterrestrial dust from a comet encounter. More details of this
particular scenario can be seen at the following website:
>
All of this raises the questions, what drove both the Little Ice
Age and
the thirty year interval in the middle of the last century? It is
possible that they were driven by the two different causes
outlined. It
is vital I think that the reason(s) for the two climate shifts be
determined. This would go along way to settle the recent debate
as to
the importance of solar minima in initiating climate changes
over more
than just a few years. Further to this, the picture of the
future will
be clarified. If for example, decreases in solar output is
proven to be
of less importance during the past, then surely the present climate
downturn will be likely only a temporary respite from the inexorable
upward trend in temperatures worldwide. If on the other hand the
solar
cycles accompanied by low sun activity over decades and even
longer can
be proven as significant, then I believe we must re-examine the
increased carbon dioxide scenario.
Rodney Chilton
============
(9) RESOURCES DEPLETION WORRIES
Steven Zoraster
>>
Benny,
Certainly someone with access to the hard numbers and more knowledge
than I can do better proving or disproving the following
argument about
the ERoEI of nuclear power in the United States:
Today, 104 nuclear reactors supply 20% of the electricity used
each year
in the United States. [1]They have been doing this for
approximately 25
years. [2] Many existing reactors have now been approved to
operate for
60 years. While the initial costs measured in energy use 25
years ago
were high and construction often took 5 years, I doubt that the
construction process for all 104 reactors, required greater
energy than
the equivalent of 20% of annual electricity used 25 years ago
over a 5
year period. (I include the cost of design, obtaining permits,
fighting
environmental lawsuits, manufacturing parts, and actual
construction,
etc., in the total energy cost.)
Today the annual operating costs of maintaining, fuelling, and
repairing
existing reactors are low compared to alternate sources of
electricity
except hydroelectric. The nuclear waste from these reactors has been
safely stored at the reactor sites without causing a single
human death.
Conclusions: Assuming the generation of electric energy in the
US since
about 1985 has been and will be constant, the ERoEI of nuclear power
using 25 year old technology is greater than 12. (Twenty percent
of all
electric energy generated over 60 years divided by 20% of the same
amount of pre-atomic electricity generated over 5 years.) Given that
total electricity use in the US has almost doubled in the last
25 years
[3], the ERoEI may be greater than 24. More modern proposed reactor
designs, with greater standardization, simpler fuel cycles, fail
safe
features, and increased automation, can be expected to have higher
ERoEI.
(I have not included the cost of decommissioning reactors. Numbers I
found online are often estimates and seldom given in terms of
energy.
Because fuel costs today and to be expected in the future are low,
ignoring the option of recycling used fuel is not a significant
factor
in my calculations.)
Steven Zoraster
[1]
[55]
ants/
[2]
[56]
Reactors were being completed between 1957 and 1996. The first large
commercial reactors date to 1968. The longest "build time" is 24
years.
Some reactors have been closed after being built and have been
ignored
in my argument. My use of 25 years in these calculations is
certainly a
suspect approximation or average.
[3] [57] (Then click on
"Electricity" on the left side of the page.)
==========
(10) COPENHAGEN SUMMIT: DO SCIENCE AND ECONOMICS SUPPORT GOVERNMENT
ACTION ON GLOBAL WARMING?
Peter Kidson
>]
Hi Benny
You might perhaps want to publicise this public debate
>>
Note that you need to reserve seats.
Regards
-Peter
==========
(11) A DEATH SPIRAL FOR CLIMATE ALARMISM?
Robert Bradley
>>
Ken Green's post at MasterResource today should be of interest.
Things are getting very shrill from the Climate Industry, but
there is a
rethink going on starting with the physical science.
Robert L. Bradley Jr.
CEO & Founder, Institute for Energy Research
Houston, Texas 77057-3527
IER Website: [68]www.energyrealism.org
Political Capitalism website: [71]www.politicalcapitalism.org
Energy Blog: [74]www.MasterResource.org
=============
(12) AND FINALLY: 'PLANNED RECESSION' COULD AVOID CATASTROPHIC
CLIMATE CHANGE
The Daily Telegraph, 30 September 2009
uld-avoid-catastrophic-climate-change.html>
By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Britain will have to stop building airports, switch to electric
cars and
shut down coal-fired power stations as part of a 'planned
recession' to
avoid dangerous climate change.
At the moment the UK is committed to cutting greenhouse gases by
a third
by 2020.
However a new report from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change
Research
said these targets are inadequate to keep global warming below two
degrees C above pre-industrial levels.
The report says the only way to avoid going beyond the dangerous
tipping
point is to double the target to 70 per cent by 2020.
This would mean reducing the size of the economy through a "planned
recession".
Kevin Anderson, director of the research body, said the building
of new
airports, petrol cars and dirty coal-fired power stations will
have to
be halted in the UK until new technology provides an alternative to
burning fossil fuels.
"To meet [Government] targets of not exceeding two degrees C, there
would have to be a moratorium on airport expansion, stringent
measures
on the type of vehicle being used and a rapid transition to low
carbon
technology," he said.
Prof Anderson also said individuals will have to consume less.
"For most of the population it would mean fairly modest changes
to how
they live, maybe they will drive less, share a car to work or
take more
holidays in Britain."
More than 190 countries are due to meet in Copenhagen in December to
decide a new international deal on climate change.
Speaking at an Oxford University conference on the threat of climate
change, Prof. Anderson said rich countries will have to make
much more
ambitious cuts to have any chance of keeping temperature rise
below four
degrees C.
"If we do everything we can do then we might have a chance," he
said.
Copyright 2009, TDT
----------------
CCNet is a science policy network edited by Benny Peiser. To
subscribe,
send an e-mail to
>> ("subscribe CCNetMedia"). To
unsubscribe send an e-mail to
>> ("unsubscribe
CCNetMedia"). Information circulated on this network is for
scholarly
and educational use only. The attached information may not be
copied or
reproduced for any other purposes without prior permission of the
copyright holders. DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints
expressed in the articles and texts and in other CCNet
contributions do
not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the
editor.
--         David W. Schnare
Center for Environmental Stewardship
-- David W. Schnare
Center for Environmental Stewardship
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
geoengineering+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
[85]
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com
6. mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com
7. mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com
8. mailto:euggordon@comcast.net
9. mailto:euggordon@comcast.net%20%3Cmailto:euggordon@comcast.net
10. mailto:adwhite99@comcast.net
11. mailto:adwhite99@comcast.net
12. mailto:adwhite99@comcast.net
13. mailto:B.J.Peiser@ljmu.ac.uk%3E%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0
14. mailto:B.J.Peiser@ljmu.ac.uk
15. mailto:CCNetMedia@livjm.ac.uk%3E%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0
16. mailto:CCNetMedia@livjm.ac.uk
17. mailto:jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com
18. mailto:jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com
19. mailto:jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com
20. mailto:maberrd@hotmail.com
21. mailto:maberrd@hotmail.com
22. mailto:maberrd@hotmail.com
23. mailto:szoraster@szoraster.com
24. mailto:szoraster@szoraster.com
25. mailto:szoraster@szoraster.com
26. mailto:peterdkidson@googlemail.com
27. mailto:peterdkidson@googlemail.com
28. mailto:peterdkidson@googlemail.com
29. mailto:rbradley@iertx.org
30. mailto:rbradley@iertx.org
31. mailto:rbradley@iertx.org
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43. mailto:jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com
44. mailto:jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com
45. mailto:jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com
46.
47.
48. mailto:maberrd@hotmail.com%20%3Cmailto:maberrd@hotmail.com
49.
50.
51.
52. mailto:szoraster@szoraster.com
53. mailto:szoraster@szoraster.com
54. mailto:szoraster@szoraster.com
55.
56.
57.
58. mailto:peterdkidson@googlemail.com
59. mailto:peterdkidson@googlemail.com%3E%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0
60. mailto:peterdkidson@googlemail.com
61.
62.
63.
64.
65. mailto:rbradley@iertx.org
66. mailto:rbradley@iertx.org%20%3Cmailto:rbradley@iertx.org
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78. mailto:listserver@ljmu.ac.uk
79. mailto:listserver@ljmu.ac.uk%3E%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0
80. mailto:listserver@ljmu.ac.uk
81. mailto:listserver@ljmu.ac.uk
82. mailto:listserver@ljmu.ac.uk
83. mailto:listserver@ljmu.ac.uk
84.
85.


"
X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5045
Professor Briffa,
I have written a couple of blogs on the current report by Steve
McIntyre that the data used by Mann to "prove" the hockey Stick was fabricated. This & the
following day's
[1]
.
As a result I have received this email from somebody I am not aquainted with throwing
the entire blame on you. This seems improbable to me & possibly an alarmist damage
limitation exercise. If you wish to comment I would be happy for you to do so.
"Please note: Steve McIntyre's post concerns work by climate scientist Keith Briffa and
not Michael Mann. You will probably wish to correct your post.
Cheers
Avisame"
I have posted this as an update with my reply:
"My understanding is that while Briffa did the tree ring measurement, Mann, in his paper,
chose to choose 12 atypical tree rings out of at least 34 to fabricate the global warming
trend. My assumption is that Mann is responsible for fabrications in his own paper & that
this is a damage limitation exercise. I am open to correction on this & indeed have emailed
Mr Briffa to see. "
Neil Craig
You may be interested in my political blog
[2]
We received this through our enquiries desk.  I assume that you are aware of this person,
including those copied on the message.
If we are to respond, it would be to indicate that there are multiple sources of supporting
evidence and that we continue to place our confidence in the international scientific
assessment process.  This confidence has proven to be well placed.
Roger
_____________________________________________________________________
From: Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen
Date: 2 October 2009 18:09:39 GMT+01:00
To: Stephanie Ferguson
Cc: "Peiser, Benny"
, Patrick David Henderson
, Christopher Monckton
Subject: RE: Please take note of potetially serious  allegations of scientific
'fraud' by CRU and Met Office
Dear Stephanie
I expect that a great deal of UKCIP work is based on the data provided by CRU (as
does the work of the IPCC and  of course UK  climate policy). Some of this, very
fundamentally, would now seem to be open to scientific challenge, and may even face future
legal enquiries. It may be in the interest of UKCIP to inform itself in good time and
become a little more 'uncertain' about its policy advice.
Perhaps you can comment on the following and pass the allegations made on to the
relevant  people.
It is beyond my expertise to assess the claims made, but they would fit into my
perception of the whole 'man-made global warming' cum energy policy debate. I know several
of the  people involved personally and have no reason to doubt their sincerity and honour
as scientists, though I am also aware of their highly critical (of IPCC science) policy
positions.
I could also let you have statements by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. Ross
McKitrick currently teaches at Westminister Business School and who is fully informed about
the relevant issues. He recently addressed a meeting of about 50 people in London.
Best wishes
Sonja B-C
Dr.Sonja A.Boehmer-Christiansen
Reader Emeritus, Department of Geography
Hull University
Editor, Energy&Environment
Multi-Science ([3]www.multi-science.co.uk)
HULL HU6 7RX
Phone:(0044)1482 465369/465385
Fax: (0044) 1482 466340
TWO copied pieces follow, both relate to CRU and UK climate policy
a. THE MET OFFICE AND CRU'S YAMAL SCANDAL: EXPLAIN OR RESIGN
" Jennifer Marohasy
Leading UK Climate Scientists Must Explain or Resign, Jennifer Marohasy
[5]
must-explain-or-resign/>
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.


Keith,
Here's a message from Tom. It might be worth sending anything you've got to him to have
a look through. Shorter responses are probably better.  Detail can go in a poster.
Pointing out how often or not Yamal is used is useful. I don't think they have done
this. I think many people confuse this with the polar urals chronology. That is different
and it is based on density.
M&M rely on people not checking.
Cheers
Phil
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 03:57:57 -0600
From: Tom Wigley
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421)
To: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: CCNet: A Scientific Scandal Unfolds
X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00
X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f028)
X-Spam-Score: 0.30 () [Hold at 5.00] PORN_RP_NASTY,SPF(none,0)
X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default)
X-Canit-Stats-ID: 32219749 - e7f62debf1d6
X-Antispam-Training-Forget:
[1]
X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam:
[2]
X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [3]
X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184
Phil,
It is distressing to read that American Stinker item. But Keith
does seem to have got himself into a mess. As I pointed out in
emails, Yamal is insignificant. And you say that (contrary to
what M&M say) Yamal is *not* used in MBH, etc. So these facts
alone are enough to shoot down M&M is a few sentences (which
surely is the only way to go -- complex and wordy responses
will be counter productive).
But, more generally, (even if it *is* irrelevant) how does Keith
explain the McIntyre plot that compares Yamal-12 with Yamal-all? And
how does he explain the apparent "selection" of the less well-replicated
chronology rather that the later (better replicated) chronology?
Of course, I don't know how often Yamal-12 has really been used in
recent, post-1995, work. I suspect from what you say it is much less
often that M&M say -- but where did they get their information? I
presume they went thru papers to see if Yamal was cited, a pretty foolproof method if
you ask me. Perhaps these things can be explained clearly and concisely -- but I am not
sure Keith is able to do this
as he is too close to the issue and probably quite pissed of.
And the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that
affects both you and Keith (and Mann). Yes, there are reasons -- but
many *good* scientists appear to be unsympathetic to these. The
trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something,
and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is
being hidden.
I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this.
I'd be willing to check over anything he puts together.
Tom.
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.
2.
3.


Tom,
I can't see why the data become ERSSTv3b. b seems all that you can download.
I reviewed the 2008 paper. The version that I reviewed had something in for the problem of
SST data now re drifters and ships, but they pulled that section. I recall saying it needed
to be watertight and they needed to explain the spatial pattern to the ship minus drifter
field. Maybe that version was a?
I was never that keen on their infilling. It biases the values before the 1920s when you
infill with anomalies that are nearer to zero. You can see this in their Fig6. This version
is better than their previous one.
I always assumed they still had gaps - as it would be impossible to infill the
Antarctic and some parts of the Southern Oceans. Have you tried looking at their Antarctic
average - 65-90S for example?
Their globe should be one domain, so not (NH+SH)/2 but for an infilled dataset this
shouldn't make any difference.
I wonder if they downweight the infilled values in some way?  They have their error
field?
The 2008 paper doesn't say how they compute Global and NH and SH. Are NH and SH the same
as you get?
Cheers
Phil
At 06:56 05/10/2009, Tom Wigley wrote:
Phil, Ben,
Have you looked at the latest NCDC global data? It seems odd.
The data on their site is ERSSTv3 (Smith et al. 2008). As far
as I know, this is an infilled data set with no gaps. As such,
(NH+SH)/2 should be the same as their global mean. For monthly
data, this is not the case. There are actually some big
differences, even recently.
Any idea why?
Tom.
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Andrew,
Getting a bit fed up with these baseless allegations.
You could point out several things to Martin.
1. Projections aren't made with observed data - instrumental or paleo. They are made with
climate models.
2. The initial seed for all these allegations is made on Climate Audit. Here they are
quite clever and don't go over the top. They leave it to others like the National Review,
the American Thinker to make the ridiculous ones.
Here is what Stephen McIntyre says on Climate Audit.
"While there is much to criticise in the handling of this data by the authors and the
journals, the results do not in any way show that 'AGW is a fraud' nor that this particular
study was a 'fraud'.
McIntyre has no interest in publishing his results in the peer-review literature. IPCC
won't be able to assess any of it unless he does.
You dad and Susan Solomon have had runs in with him and others
3. You might like to send him this pdf and its Figure 2.  Three different groups get much
the same result.
Here are the two web pages we have put up so far. Keith is working on the tree one and
put much more later in the week.
[1]
So other groups around the world have also entered into agreements. I know this doesn't
make it right, but it is the way of the world with both instrumental and paleo data. I
frequently try and get data from other people without success, sometimes from people who
send me the pdf of their paper then tell me they can't send me the series in their plots.
[2]
It is the right wing web sites doing all this, presumably in the build up to Copenhagen.
At 00:13 06/10/2009, Andrew Manning wrote:
Hi Phil,
is this another witch hunt (like Mann et al.)?  How should I respond to the below? (I'm
in the process of trying to persuade Siemens Corp. (a company with half a million
employees in 190 countries!) to donate me a little cash to do some CO2 measurments here
in the UK - looking promising, so the last thing I need is news articles calling into
question (again) observed temperature increases - I thought we'd moved the debate beyond
this, but seems that these sceptics are real die-hards!!).
Kind regards,
Andrew
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 15:50:38 +0100
Subject: Co2 Data
From: Martin Lutyens
To: Andrew Manning
Dear Andrew,
I just came across an article in The Week, called "The case of the vanishing data". It
writes in a rather wry and sceptical way about your UEA colleagues Phil Jones and Tom
Wigley , saying that only their "homogenised" or "adjusted" historical data  is
available, and the original, raw data has gone missing. Apparently some other
environmental gurus now want to look at the original data and were "fobbed off".
According to the article, the adjusted data forms the basis for much of the climate
change debate and , because others now want to look at the source data, it is "at the
centre of an academic spat that could have major implications for the climate change
debate". The author of the original article is Patrick Michaels in The National Review,
who may just be stirring it.
The article concludes "In short, the data invoked to verify the most significant
forecasts about the world's future, have simply vanished."  Could you comment on this
please, as someone (eg Siemens Corp.) may pick this up and I think we should all be
forearmed by knowing what really happened and what to say if asked.
Many thanks,  Martin
--
Martin Lutyens
+44 (0) 207 938 2387
+44 (0) 796 646 2661
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.
2.