Tuesday
Nov222011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Climategate 2
Nov 22, 2011 I'm away from my desk, so this is just a placeholder until I can get home, get hold of the files, and make some comment.
Nov 22, 2011 
Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
May 2 - Thomas
on
Launched my very own online store. -
Apr 29 - Harry Kevin
on
Launched my very own online store.
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (216)
[Snip: unnecessary} It is fascinating to observe the "logic" of Hengist et al. Please stay!
Matthu, don't forget the following paragraph in the Mail article:
It is still unclear what effect - or combination of effects - is causing the current warming of the atmosphere, which has risen around one [degree C?] temperature in the past 50 years.
I suspect that the CG whistleblower(s) has a sense of humour. It wouldn't surprise me if the password for the encrypted material is 'Hidden in full view'
Potential candidates may be along the lines of 'AnInconvenientTruth', 'HockeyStick' or 'HideTheDecline'
Trawling through nearly a quarter of a million e-mails would play havoc with one's social life and a certain level of fatigue must be creeping in by now.
There must also be a large number of e-mails that have nothing to do with work and are private to an individual. Publishing the password would give access to this type of material and could lie heavy on one's conscience.
Perhaps letting 'Lady Luck' do her work would be a low-guilt approach to getting rid of a hot potato!
Pure speculation of course.
I've tried:
http://files.sinwt.ru/download.php?file=25FOIA2011.zip
and I get a 404. Can anyone point me to the real deal? Thx!
Of all the days I don't get a read until late in the evening!
:D
BBD says:
Others would say the physics shows CO2 cools the climate system, http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/JCao_N2O2GreenGases_Blog.pdf
Phillip Bratby
[Snip: please moderate your language toward other commenters] Denying the greenhouse effect is instant, absolute and irrevocable credibility suicide.
Hengist McStone The original hacking was without doubt a crime, it is being investigated by Norfolk Police.
Hi Hengist,
Other than the inference that if the police are involved it must have been illegal, is there any other evidence that an illegal hack occurred? So far as I can see, if whoever released the mails had authorised access to the system, then nothing illegal would have occurred - although it might well be a disciplinary matter, so far as the UAE was concerned. The identity of whoever released the emails seems to be entirely mysterious, so I am not sure how we can rule out someone with authorised access to the system.
BBD
"Denying the greenhouse effect .."
CO2 does scatter (absorb and re-radiate) IR in certain wavelengths, which makes it a so called greenhouse gas.
What that particular GHG does to the entire atmosphere, the weather there, and over time, to the climate is a very different question.And still very open.
As I said before: The AGW-hypothesis is that this effect is heating, and mostly also heating more than just what can be expected from just that scattering.
But that's the hypothesis, the hypothesis that so far has failed in almost all of its projections.
Jonas N
The fact - and it is a fact - that RF from GHGs heats the climate system has been established for over a century. This forms the basis for the hypothesis that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will increase the absorption and re-radiation of LW, heating the climate system accordingly.
A tiny handful of contrarians argue otherwise, but have no evidence to support their claims.
I suggest you concentrate on this lack of evidence. It is important. It tells us something.
Jonas N
It's open to the extent that there is debate about exactly how fast GAT will move towards a new equilibrium for a given increase in CO2. It is not open on the question of cause and effect. Increased CO2 will cause increased accumulation of energy in the climate system. It will heat up.
There is no evidence whatsoever to the contrary, and a very substantial body of work supporting this hypothesis. You appear to have been very seriously misinformed.
BBD
Sorry to disappoint you, but the climate system and how it works are very poorly understood. There are lots (and i really means lots of lots) of things going on, affecting the earth's climate that are not understood at all.
What you refer to is not the climate, but CO2s radiative properties. It is those that have been established more than a century ago.
The idea that it is CO2 (at least mostly) that also governs the total amount of GHGs and the greenhouse effect, is fairly new, and nowhere close to being established or accepted. (It is not discarded either)
It seems that you are confusing the two, or just aren't very well informed about what the AGW-theory actually is purporting (and I mean scientifically, not the Gore/blog-version of it)
I'm confused why will current increases in CO2 cause the GAT to rise when much higher levels of CO2 in the past did not do so?
BBD
I believe Cao discusses the 'greenhouse gasses', not the 'greenhouse effect' (whatever that might mean). The half-mirror idea is not new: it was the accepted explanation back in the 60's where the term greenhouse was not used to explain a sealed transparent enclosure but the properties of glass itself which is semi-transparent to IR. The semi-transparency causing a delay in the escape of IR which raised the temperature of the atmosphere until equilibrium is achieved. Greenhouses need not be involved other than to illustrate the properties of a half-mirror.
@MartinA The question of whether any incident is a crime or not is for the Police at first instance. They've maintained an investigation (at great cost) over some time so their actions demonstrate their opinion is that a crime has occurred. You raise an interesting point that if it was an inside job then no crime would have occurred. I'm no expert but I figure that defense would be scuttled by the fact that an administrator would still not necessarily have access to the individual materials. I'm assuming the UEA's email system has a degree of automation ;-)
Hengist...are you really Harry Hill in disguise?
BBD
I am never misinformed or even badly informed.
You describe the hypothesis, and what it is based on. I agree that there is at least some basis for putting that hypothesis forward.
What you don't seem to be aware of is what has been built on top of that hypothesis and what today (and since IPCC and particularly TAR 2001) is considered as AGW.
Which is what is being discussed in the 'climate debate' where essentially all the skeptics have the upper hand. And data och observations on their side.
Very few argue that there is no effect at all. Most certainly I don't. But that is not at all the topic. The topic is rather whether CO2 has the potency of controlling the entire climate system. And that question is very speculative, and support for it is dwindling.
You seem to be still on the level that CO2 as a GHG, when its level is increased, also must (and that's the key word) imply that all GHGs must increase at the same time.
The 'consensus' AGW-theory even assumes that it must(!) imply that even other GHG-levels must increase and follow as 'slave parameters'.
And that is what the climate debate is about. Not the kindergarten- or Gore-version of the explanation. I had hoped you'd moved past that.
If not, it is time to do so:
Climate and one gas' radiative properties are very and distinctly different features ... and if you can't distinguish between those two, you are very far away from the core of the debate.
And BTW, those emails are indeed very revealing. Amongst other things, that those key-players were aware of what I am saying.
This is such fun.
A worried Revkin:
3663.txt
"date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:57:08 -0400
from: Andrew Revkin
subject: nature paper / ocean model as short-term regional climate forecast
to: [Trenberth], [Phil Jones], [...]
Hi all,
I'd greatly appreciate your input (under Nature embargo rules, meaning no public discussion
til Weds afternoon) on the attached paper (news/views attached as well) forecasting a north
atlantic-driven cool spell for next decade or so based on a new approach to ocean modeling.
this has significance in policy arena, of course, if people don't appreciate that
inevitable wiggles from climate variability can muddy trends. If they don't, then efforts
to paint human-pushed warming as an 'urgent' imperative can be undercut. [...]"
Jonas N
You are being patronising, which is unwise.
So you think that increasing RF from CO2 doesn't increase GAT and so atmospheric WV? I'm sorry Jonas, but you are one of these painful commenters who just doesn't have the knowledge to engage in constructive discussion.
And it's late, and I'm tired. Believe whatever makes you happy. Goodnight.
Mikey gets his mate Phil into the AGU:
3482.txt
"date: Tue Jun 3 13:07:14 2008
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: nomination: materials needed!
to: [Mann]
Mike,
Have a look through these and see if they fit the bill. Check whether these print OK on US paper.
On the bibliography I've listed the principal papers in four sections - and chosen mainly those where I'm first author. If you want me add any that you think I should
let me know.
There is countless more things I could add to the CV, but these are the major ones.
Thanks for arranging this!
Cheers
Phil
At 20:44 02/06/2008, you wrote:
Hi Phil,
This is coming along nicely. I've got 5 very strong supporting letter writers lined up to support your AGU Fellowship nomination (confidentially: Ben Santer, Tom Karl, Jean Jouzel, and Lonnie Thompson have all agreed, waiting to hear back from one more individual, maximum is six letters including mine as nominator).
Meanwhile, if you can pass along the following information that is needed for the nomination package that would be very helpful. thanks in advance!
mike
Selected bibliography
* Must be no longer than 2 pages.
* Begin by briefly stating the candidates total number and types of publications and
specifying the number published in AGU journals.
* Do not just select the most recent publications; choose those that best support your argument for Fellowship.
Curriculum Vitae
* Must be no longer than 2 pages.
* List the candidates name, address, history of employment, degrees, research experience,
honors, memberships, and service to the community through committee work, advisory boards, etc.
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology "
Hengist,
You may be correct on the issue of illegality if the emails are in fact a product of theft. I think that has yet to be proven. But conceding for the moment that this is in fact what happened, that still leaves the claim that they are "private". If there was ever a topic to make the claim "There is no debate.", it would be on this point. Any email written on one's employer account or server is in any sense of the word "private". The email belongs to the employer, not the employee. And when the employer is a publically funded institution, there is a fair case that access by public to email is not unreasonable. It is fair to debate what controls regarding access by the public should be in place, but on the basic issue of privacy, there simply is none. If people want to have "private" conversations, then get a private account.
ssat
"The semi-transparency causing a delay in the escape of IR which raised the temperature of the atmosphere"
That's what I've been taught, but it doesn't really explain why plastic greenhouses (e.g. polytunnels) get just as hot as their glass counterparts, also demonstrated 100 years ago by RW Wood, who pioneered infra-red photography.
Three of the 5000+ emails are by me. (I of course forgot to write down the numbers.) These three are genuine.
BBD
It is hard not to 'sound' patronizing when explaining the underlying details once more, in a situation where they really should have been understood a long time ago.
"So you think that increasing RF from CO2 doesn't increase GAT and so atmospheric WV?"
You are not paying attention, BBD. What you describe is the (simplest, Gore/kindergarten-version of AGW). The real debate is far beyond that. And the 'consensus position' which you seem to champion, also goes way further. Which is where the real debate is. And you either are unaware of (the distinction) or pretend to conflate as a rhetoric method. Where the insincerity would be the most flattering wrt your understanding.
Believe me, the knowledge is on my side. As i was when you made wild assertions about the non-relevance of any UHI effect.
And finally, those leaked email still confirm exactly what I said. And your attempt at diversion still has no value. Not even if your belief in the 'consensus' position of AGW is legit ...
How the emails got into the public domain is neither here nor there, whether leaked or stolen. The hengist, faux high minded position, that they were stolen, so we should not consider them, rather like a decent fellow would not knowingly handle stolen goods, is nonsensical. We are not talking about goods here, but information, and how it lands on one's desk is not the issue, the issue is that it has; and what use can be made of this freely given, very interesting, information. Does any national security agency, necessarily taking the view that it is doing vital work, say to itself "Hang on, that information our agent in wherever got for us may have been stolen by him using the super technology we supplied him with, so our using it puts us in an ethical quandary"? Maybe. Maybe they just "Rejoice, rejoice" when something lands on the desk which seems useful and interesting.
Richard,
You may have only sent 3 but your name appears in 14. I am still sorting out the Dutch uses of my name before I can give a final score!
.
James P
Philip Bratby at 9:58 posted this link to which I refer;
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/JCao_N2O2GreenGases_Blog.pdf
My point is about the effects of semi-transparency to IR. In a sealed semi-transparent enclosure there are also convection effects from heat absorbed by the contents of the enclosure. The convection effects may well dominate for all I know but that does not discount the effect of the semi-transparency. To my mind, the term 'greenhouse' is nothing but misleading and 'greenhouse gas' more so.
Sorry;
'greenhouse effect' is nothing but misleading and 'greenhouse gas' more so.
Lessons in how to pick cherries and squeeze that data for all it's worth:
4578.txt
"date: Mon Jul 18 14:25:52 2005
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Re: Text and CQ stuff
to: "Parker, David (Met Office)", Kevin Trenberth
Kevin,
Even without smoothing it is possible to get a trend of nearer 0.75 if the trend
starts around 1920 (especially if the cold year of 1917 is at the start). The
periods chosen for Table 3.2.2 had some justification, so we need to be a
little careful. As a schematic for CQ2 though, it will be a different way of
showing the same data.
I'll talk it over with David.
Cheers
Phil
At 14:03 18/07/2005, Parker, David (Met Office) wrote:
Kevin
I will discuss with Phil when he comes. We could ask John Kennedy to do
a plot. However, sub-period linear trends are already in Table 3.2.2
and, despite not being matched exactly to the sub-periods you suggest, lead to a similar conclusion (ca 0.75C warming overall).
Regards
David
On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 22:59, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I have started going thru the text a bit more thoroughly. At present
> the description of the global mean temperature record is for a warming
> of 0.6C during the 20th Century. That is the linear reprducible
> value. But it is not a useful value as the trend is not linear. In
> the recent paper by Raper et al on SST they make a point to give
> values for both the linear trend and the change from the low pass
> filtered record. The latter is quite a bit bigger. I would like to
> see us adopt something similar. The question then is how to
> characterise the record. Here is my attempt: words
>
> However, the record is best characterized as level prior to about
> 1920, a warming to 1940 or so, leveling out or even slightly
> decreasing until 1970, and a fairly linear trend since then. Going by
> the low pass filtered data, the overall warming through 2005is 0.75ºC,
> with 0.5ºC increase occurring after 1970.
>
> To illustrate this I tried to capture the sense of this in the
> accompanying ppt. There are two slides. Make sure you go into slide
> show mode to view them. You will see the first has a smoothed trend
> the second has linear segments that join. The idea is to also capture
> the overall error bars to a reasonable degree, as you can see. In
> fact this could be linked to the modeling and attribution chapter to
> say that the warming in the first part of the 20th century was partly
> due to solar, the cooling from 1940 to 1970 to increased aerosol, and
> the warming after 1970 to the increasing GHGs.
>
> This could work very well as part of the CQ2.
>
> Ideally the background global mean values should not have the red bars
> on it but should just be a time series with error bars. The curves
> which I fitted by eyeball using power point should be done more
> rigorously, perhaps using a cubic spline fit with strong tension., or
> a series of segments with divides at 1940 and 1970. Then a linear
> value with the given starting point could be determined for both the
> mean and both end of the error bars.
>
> I am seeking feedback on this idea. 1) Is it a good idea and has your
> support? 2) Any comments or suggestions?
> 3) Any volunteers to do it more rigorously? Any such person would
> need the mean and error bars to do this from David or Phil?
> 4) Do you prefer the straight lines or smoothed values?
>
> Thanks
> Kevin"
In his evidence to the second ClimateGate enquiry by the HoC Select Committee on Science and Technology Professor Acton gave the following reply:
Q94 Graham Stringer: Right. I shall look at that. Professor Acton, are you satisfied that these questions weren’t asked, that people in your university were sending out e-mails suggesting that e-mails should be deleted and that hasn’t been investigated?
Professor Edward Acton: It has been investigated. I have asked them and they have assured me that they have never knowingly deleted e-mails subject to a request.
Thanks to FOIA2011 we now have access to 2368
Dave,
Do I understand it correctly – if he doesn’t pay the £10 we don’t have to respond?
With the earlier FOI requests re David Holland, I wasted a part of a day deleting numerous emails and exchanges with almost all the skeptics. So I have virtually nothing. I even deleted the email that I inadvertently sent. There might be some bits of pieces of paper, but I’m not wasting my time
going through these.
Cheers
Phil
This seems to imply that someone is being economical with the truth
BBD has revealed himself to be a true believer. No amount of evidence will convince him otherwise. It's a waste of time having a discourse with him about the so-called "greenhouse effect".
"These new emails give substance to the arguement that there is something rotten at the heart of climate science. No inquiry or review can now eradicate that particular smell." --Mac
The stench of putrefaction from the so-called "inquiries" is just as bad, if not worse.
"Pure speculation of course."--RoyFOMR
Speculation that could end in someone's death. The AGW scam is a multibillion dollar industry and I have no doubt that they would punish the whistleblower if they ever ascertain his identity with 50% certainty. Remember those two guys who "accidentally" fell to their deaths in a stairwell in a UN building in two separate incidents? I suspect they were whistleblowers or knew enough to make some people nervous.
Hengist McStone I'm no expert but I figure that defense would be scuttled by the fact that an administrator would still not necessarily have access to the individual materials.
Unless things have changed since I was last messing around with computer systems, an administrator with root logon can access *anything*.
From a quick scan of the emails, there appear to be loads of examples of clear evidence to avoid FOI requests, as if the first batch of emails wasn't clear enough. Do you think anyone is going to do anything about it? (apart from try and change the law to make them exempt for some reason.)
Arthur Dent,
I think that you have identified a "smoking gun", and the HoC Select Committee now has no option but to recall Acton and Jones in order to investigate this blatant lie.
Jonas N
Really? Let's get this straight:
- are you saying that increasing T forced by RF from CO2 does or does not increase the fraction of atmospheric water vapour?
We'll do this in baby steps, as is appropriate.
Nov 23, 2011 at 10:51 AM | BBD
"- are you saying that increasing T forced by RF from CO2 does or does not increase the fraction of atmospheric water vapour?"
Yes, it increases the amount of evaporation, convection and therefore cloud in the atmosphere, therefore increasing the amount of energy transferred from low to high levels in the atmosphere (physically and latent heat of condensation) and more cloud increases the albedo. Quite what the overall effect on the atmosphere is, is hard to tell. From the Earths history over hundreds of millions of years I'd guess that the atmosphere acts in a stable way to constrain the Earth's temperature within quite a narrow range, therefore why we have managed to sustain continual life on this planet for over half a billion years. Convection dominates over radiation in moving the Sun's daytime energy. No one talks about radiation moving energy from the tropics to the poles, because it doesn't
What you need to remember BBD is that it is water vapour (and liquid water) that is the controlling factor as it is a known greenhouse gas that is present in far greater quantities and there is an unlimited amount more that can be added in the large amount of ocean we have. The effect of humidity on weather is clearly shown somewhere like SE Asia on many afternoons.
Rob Burton
You over-state the problem. See here and related posts.
Wow, the stinking underbelly of science in bed with politics exposed.
The one thing shown is the wilful distortion of the science to drive policy along with the AGW narritive, discracful; these people should be utterly ashamed of themselves.
BBD, it is you overstating what is known and even what is only hypothesized ..
In the links you provided, it is shown that T and Rh correlate empircally (as they should), but the core question, the CO2-controling mechanism, is not adressed. And I would say that the arguments that CO2 can cause large positive feedbacks (mostly in the tropics, where mosts of the evaporation occurs) are weak.
The main role of extra CO2 greenhouse effect would be in cold, dark and dry regions (night, clear skty, closer to poles) and any extra feedback forcing due to H2O because of that is very low, I'd say.
Jonas N
This sounds to me like obfuscation.
Empirical evidence of RF from CO2 causing atmospheric fraction WV to increase with measured proportional increase in DLR:
Evans & Puckrin (2006)
Note that so great in the increase in RF from WV that it over-prints the fluxes from other GHGs. Unequivocal evidence of positive WV feedback.
See also.
Nearly forgot. Lacis rebutts Spencer's critique of Lacis et al. (2010) here.
Not really BBD
That paper shows the (instantaneous) fluxes for two days(?), one in winter and one in summer, and from one point (location).
The doubling you mention (copy) is between winter/summer. Nowhere is it infered that the CO2 causes a positive feedback (by those measurements). On the contrary, it shows the what I said: The contribution from CO2 should be mostly present at cold and dry conditions (more in winter).
I have no clue to how you could read that paper as:
"Empirical evidence of RF from CO2 causing atmospheric fraction WV to increase with measured proportional increase in DLR"
Had you really read it?
Contd.
I am uncertain about the duration of those tests: 1 day seems very short, but the measurement is said to take 15-30 min, but I can't see any information about observation time. Probably (hopefully) the results are averaged for several days, say a month, but the text is ambiguous.
Another strange things is how they could make claims about how much (in W/m2) those trace gases have increased since pre-indiustrial times, and give three-figure numbers for that value!?
Jonas N
You could be forgiven for wondering. The dangers of posting in haste. Let me try again:
The point is that the summer doubling of DLR flux is caused by the increased fraction of WV in the warmer atmosphere. So heat the atmosphere with increased RF from CO2 and you will also get an increased fraction of WV and proportionally increased DLR.
This was supposed to usher in Lacis et al. (2010) - perhaps now it all makes more sense?
Your comments on the Lacis paper?
BBD
You really have no clue, have you? The question wrt 'the core science' is about those alleged positive feedbacks. Your link does not provide any support for that (although you claim it does), does nowhere contain anything supporting you. Yet you claim it does. And when reading it carefully, it shows the exact opposite: That in the summer, where it would be needed, there is no such effect visible at all.
Sorry BBD, but that was a major fail. And if you really didn't know what you posted, it was bigger still ...
I am sorry, I did not read the Lacis paper, only your fist link, where you totally got caught out. Are you telling me that the next time, you didn't f_ck up, and got it right instead? Because (without checking) I would assume that your 'understanding' is on the same level as it was with UHI-effect before, and about positive feedbacks this time ..
Du you have an argument here, BBD, or are you too only posting random links in the mere hope that they would support something you believe in without you understanding?
Jonas N
Your first paragraph extraordinarily misguided.
Evans & Puckrin shows that a warmer atmosphere is a wetter atmosphere (read it again).
CO2 warms the atmosphere and so increases the WV content, which in turn increases downwelling RF from WV. This is called a 'positive feedback'.
This is core climate science.
If you were less arrogant and over-sure of yourself, you would recognise this.
Likewise, you would have read the Lacis paper, and realised that you were stuffed.
By the way, what body of published work do you base your ludicrous ideas on? I'd love to know, so be sure and provide links.
While your at it, you can rustle up some published studies that support your crap about UHI as well. Since you keep bringing that up.
Been lurking here for a couple of years;
BBD once engendered a modicum of respect.
Now, following this exchange ... Plonk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonk_(usenet)
That is all.
No BBD
I am not the least misguided. What those measurements say is that there is more H2O in the atmosphere in the summer than in the winter. Nobody questions that.
And nobody questions the radiative properties that CO2 displays in a controlled lab environment. The key issue is twofold:
1. What does (some extra) CO2, do to our climate, temperatures and weather? And
2. Does this possible effect cause large positive feedbacks (of factors 2-4-5, as claimed by eg IPCC)?
I am fully aware of that what you call 'core climate science' proffers the above as its hypothesis. And although I am tentatively prepared to agree that the answer to 1) shoud be 'some warming', the understanding of our weather- and climate systems are far too poorly understood that this can be claimed and specified with any precision or certainty. But more the relevant questions is 2), and it is there where your 'climate science' is full of holes, and lacks any substantial empirical support. The paper you linked, explicitly supported my (quite simple) observation, that any waring effect of CO2 if anything should be most noticable when it is cold and dry, that it can contribute fare less in warm and humid conditions (which essentially is the case when/where the bulk of watervapor enters the atmosphere).
That is why I question that (some extra) CO2 can multiply its effect (globally) through water vapor by factors of ~3 (or larger). And the global temperatures agree with that view, your link did that to (but you need to understand what it does), and those leaked emails show that some key figures too were aware of what I am saying (overstated/estimated climate sensitivity).
Let me repeat this, because it seems where you lost contact with the topic:
The atmosphere and its climate is not a simple scalar entity, whose properties are ruled by equally scalar and additive forcings, and even less so that one of forcings in turn controls one of the others slavishly.
That picture is what you describe, it is the Gore/kindergarten version of the 'explanation', and it is contradicted by your link.
What you perceive as 'arrogance' is most likely nothing but a better understanding af and grip on the basics, plus the ability to read and evaluate the actual work and the arguments sput forward. (This was the case too when I asked you about UHI, where you made some remarkably ill-informed/confused statements about 'energetically insignificant')