Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
  • Jun 23 - Mark Hodgson on
    COP 23
  • Jun 22 - Mark Hodgson on
    COP 23

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace


This has been discussed over at Anthony's, but just for the record I think it should be listed here:

the late John Daly's email to MikeMann and the team

URL text:

Nov 24, 2011 at 3:46 PM | Unregistered Commenterlapogus

Excellent piece by Katabasis on churnalism, esp WRT the Environment Agency and, of course, the Beeb...


(H/t Stephen Brown at Harmless Sky)

Nov 24, 2011 at 1:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

Phil Jones other job: Court advisor to Greenpeace:

from: Phil Jones <REDACTED>
subject: Fwd: Greenpeace

Dear All,
I've not got the time to do this. If anyone is interested then email Mike Schwarz.
I've told him I've no time. Bear in mind the other side will likely get someone to
put the opposite view across. Not sent widely as I presume a court would only be
impressed by qualifications.

Subject: Greenpeace
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 17:49:15 +0100
Thread-Topic: Greenpeace
Thread-Index: AcW6G77TJ2PQCOHXTWyyZ6w4u6nI9QFeWxLwAAANZpA=
From: "Mike Schwarz" <REDACTED>
X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.1
X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO



Dear Professor Jones
Please forgive this e-mail out of the blue.
I have been given your name by Greenpeace.
I am acting for some Greenpeace campaigners who face criminal proceedings arising from a
protest about a new Landrover model which they say is unnecessarily fuel-inefficient and
therefore contributes more than necessary to climate change.
I am looking for an expert who might be able to prepare a short (4 or 5 pages) report -
aimed at a lay audience, rather than cutting edge science - summarising the connection
between human activity and climate change and the effects of climate change with a view,
if need be, to giving evidence at my clients' trial - at West London Magistrates Court
on 28^th and 31^st October.
My clients have legal aid to be represented and so I would be able to pay for a report.
Is this something, in principle, you would be able and willing to help with?
If so I shall give you further details.
If not, is there someone else you could suggest?
You should be aware that I have written in similar terms to Professor Hulme.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Mike Schwarz

This email is from Bindman & Partners Solicitors of 275 Gray's Inn Road London WC1X 8QB,
REDACTEDREDACTED A list of partners is available on request.

This email is intended to be read only by the addressee. Its contents are confidential
and may also be the subject of legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient
of this email and it has therefore reached you by mistake, please notify this firm
immediately at the address given below. You are hereby placed on notice that any
copying, publication or any other form of dissemination of this email or its contents is
prohibited. Communications including e-mails may be monitored in the interests of
maintaining professional standards.
If you have received this email in error or have any questions please contact:

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit TelephoneREDACTED3 592090
School of Environmental Sciences FaxREDACTED3 507784
University of East Anglia

Nov 24, 2011 at 12:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterJason F

oops, wish there was an edit button it was Phil asking David Parker not to pass it on

Nov 24, 2011 at 11:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterJason F

So it seems that when the Government wanted answers to pesky sceptic questions they asked Phil Jones and told him he better not pass it on that they had! How cosy!

from: "Parker, David" <REDACTED>
subject: RE: [Fwd: Chinese urban heat island effects]
to: "Phil Jones" <REDACTED>


Thanks - I've saved this into a safe place!


David Parker, Climate Research scientist
Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom

See our guide to climate change at [1]

Sent: Monday, MarchREDACTED:50 PM
To: Parker, David
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Chinese urban heat island effects]

David, seem to have picked this up a few weeks ago, when
they made me the Director of the Hadley Centre - a job that I know doesn't exist!
I was asked by someone at DECC on Friday to write a few sentences to
help them respond to the following question, which came to Ed Milliband.
You'd better not pass this on to anyone
, but this is what I sent back.
I don't know, if any of what I said below, was used. The reply had to sent today
by noon, but I didn't hear back from anyone at DECC this morning.
I got the impression that there were other questions/issues that DECC didn't
send me.
What the questioner asked:

Surface records exaggerate warming, due to urban encroachment on recording stations.
Satellite records (available only since 1979) agree with stations distant from towns that
temperatures have been growing much slower than is alleged by alarmists. Indeed,
temperatures in the USA (the only reliable data series of any large land mass) were as high
in the 30s as in the 90s. Even Hansen accepts this. The IPCC `correction' for this `heat
island' is inadequate being largely based on unreliable Chinese records. The Director of
the Met Office's Hadley Centre finally admitted this last autumn.

My reply

Every sentence in the above is wrong!

There is more than one satellite record of MSU temperatures since 1979. They are almost
certainly referring to the University of Alabama at Hunstville (UAH) dataset. There is also
a dataset developed at Remote Sensing Systems (RSS, also in the USA) that shows more
warming than UAH since 1979. Differences relate to the way numerous issues with the sensors
and the satellite orbits have been adjusted for. The MSU instruments on these
polar-orbiting satellites also measure temperature in the lower troposphere (centred about
700hPa) so are not directly comparable with what is measured at the surface.

The best discussion of all this is in Ch 3 of 2007 IPCC AR4 (SectionREDACTEDand also
Figure 3.17).

The USA is not the only region to have good reliable series. It is the most studied record,
only because the data are more freely available than elsewhere and there are a lot of
scientists there. There are excellent records also across Europe, Canada, Australia, New
Zealand, Japan and Russia, and they are considerably longer in Europe than the USA.
Although coverage could be better in other regions of the world, all records from across
world have been assessed for long-term homogeneity (including the effects of urbanization).

The reference to Jim Hansen indicates that they place great emphasis on the records
produced by GISS. There is another US dataset (developed by NCDC in Asheville), which I
think is better and this has the contiguous US (lower 48 states) warmer in the 1990s
compared to the 1930s. The CRUTEM3 data (the land component of HadCRUT3) agree better with
the NCDC data than it does with GISS. A figure from AR4 to illustrate this is Fig 9.12 from
Ch 9. This shows observed decadal mean temperatures since 1900 for three parts of North
America (west, central and east) and all show that the 1990s was the warmest decade of the
20th century.

IPCC doesn't have a correction, just like it doesn't have a data set or a climate model.
IPCC assesses the scientific literature, it doesn't do research.

The penultimate sentence refers to a recent paper (Jones et alREDACTEDThis looks at
urbanization issues across China. This paper shows that urban-related warming is about 0.1
deg C/decade (for the periodREDACTED Accounting for this, the remaining warming is 0.81
deg C over the period fromREDACTEDCombining these two bits of information means that
60% of the warming is not due to urban effects. This result is just for China, and cannot
be applied elsewhere in the world. The paper shows, for example, that there is no
urban-related warming at sites in the centres of London and Vienna. The contrast between
the effects in China and those in London and Vienna highlight the fact that urban-related
warming cannot be assumed to be occurring just based on a city's population. It is
imperative to look at the data and compare urban with rural sites.

AR4 of IPCC referred to several studies which looked at the effect of urbanization during
the last 50-70 years. These studies include ParkerREDACTED) and Peterson and Owen
REDACTEDthe latter showing hardly any urban-related warming across the contiguous United
States (see this in Fig 3.3 of AR4). The Jones et alREDACTEDstudy does not conflict with
the earlier Jones et alREDACTEDstudy, but instead confirms its findings, which were based
on theREDACTEDperiod. Figures 6 and 7 clearly show that much of the temperature rise
across China has occurred since the mid-1980s, the period after the 1990 study.

Finally, the paper gives the affiliation of the first two authors, namely the Climatic
Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The first author is not the Director of the
Hadley Centre at the Met Office. In fact, no such position actually exists.


Jones, P.D., Lister, D.H. and Li, Q., 2008: Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature
records, with an emphasis on China. J. Geophys. Res. 113, D16122,

Jones, P.D., P.Ya. Groisman, M. Coughlan, N. Plummer, W.-C. Wang and T.R. Karl, 1990:
Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land.

Parker, D.E., 2004: Large-scale warming is not urban. NatureREDACTED90.

Parker, D.E., 2006: A demonstration that large-scale warming is not urban. J. Climate, 19,

Peterson, T.C. and T.W. Owen, 2005: Urban heat island assessment: Metadata are important.
J. ClimateREDACTED646.

At 14:17 30/03/2009, you wrote:

No, we have not changed our estimates. We already knew that China was undergoing
urbanisation, more so than other parts of the world. 0.1

Nov 24, 2011 at 11:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterJason F

From Prof. Jones August 2009

Email 0109:

'...I don't consider myself a public servant, and I doubt many working in the University
sector in the UK would either. University workers in the UK are not what we call civil servants....'

Its my ball and I'm going home.

Nov 24, 2011 at 11:26 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Reed

The email 1796 string is quite revealing. The team rattled by McIntyre and formulating defence tactics before they have even seen it, and also appearing to worry about Mann's volatility as a loose cannon in their own shop (Anyway, there's going to be a lot of noise on this one, and knowing Mann's very thin
skin I am afraid he will react strongly, unless he has learned (as I hope he has) from
the past....")

Nov 24, 2011 at 10:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

"So the mewling infant that we call Climate Science – a 40-year-young offshoot of meteorology – has been thrust into a political role long before it’s capable of supporting the claims made on its behalf. From the archives we can see the scientists know that too, and we can read their own reluctance to make those claims, too."

From Andrew Orlowski's piece on El Reg...


Nov 24, 2011 at 8:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

This may be old news (it is difficult to keep up) but Revkin states in an update that Phil Jones has now responded to CG2 - here.

UEA has also posted (on Wed 23rd Nov) explanations from Phil Jones of what he meant in key CG2 emails - Cherry-picked phrases explained.

Nov 24, 2011 at 7:29 AM | Unregistered Commenterlapogus

To the eminent Mr Bratby

I too have had the same responses from the DECC, along the lines of "we dont have any information about CO2 causing global warming, we just follow the IPCC advice. Not only that but "reading IPCC reports is not part of the minister's job spec".
The Newsnight prog tonight was encouraging and discouraging in equal measure. Paxman nade a genuine attempt to pin Huhne down on the cost of green energy but ultimately did not have the knowledge to expose him.
Mr Paxman also grilled the British Gas boss about rising costs to consumers v relatively stable wholesale prices, once again Paxman did not have the knowledge to make a fool of the guy.
The good news was that Paxman was genuinly trying to expose these guys, the bad news was that not once during the whole prog did anyone mention the word SHALE.
Huhne said enough in this program to earn the label "bare faced liar". He mentioned the contract recently signed by BG to import Natural Gas from Norway in a 10 year agreement. Huhne used the BG contract to show that he was protecting us from the highly volatile gas market and stated that we were now secure in our supplies from "friendly contries".
There was no mention of the BG contract to import Shale Gas from the USA over a 20 year period or that there may actually be as much Shale Gas in and around the UK as so far has been discovered in the US.

Nov 24, 2011 at 1:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterDung

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>