Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

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

Powered by Squarespace

Unthreaded

Not the right time for this, but a great cartoon at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/coffeebreak/cartoons/mac.html

Nov 22, 2011 at 12:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Just thought you'd all like to know Climategate 2.0 just happened ;-) !

the second tranch: (look real)

1st random email, should make Donna Laframboise happy......

---------------------
Phil Jones:

"....As Kevin may have said to you, we have a very mixed bag of LAs in our chapter. Being the basic atmos obs. one, we've picked up a number of people from developing countries so IPCC can claim good geographic representation....."

date: Fri Dec 3 09:51:51 2004
from: Phil Jones <xxxxxxxxxx
subject: Re: Your IPCC thoughts for UCAR Highlights
to: "Bob Henson" xxxxxxxxxxx>

Bob,
Reply brief as we're at the stage of trying to get the zeroth-order draft
together for Dec 15.
Despite most of my fellow scientists thinking I've been involved in the
IPCC process before, this time for AR4 is my first. The main benefit is
that the science produces an assessment (and associated summaries)
for the govts and policy types. As an aside it produces an excellent book
for teaching (when combined with earlier assessments, as each new one
is an update and not from scratch). Improvements this time will be
FAQs for 1-3 issues per chapter. Side boxes were in last time and will be
continued this time. These are very useful to give detail of techniques
without upsetting the flow.
As Kevin may have said to you, we have a very mixed bag of LAs in
our chapter. Being the basic atmos obs. one, we've picked up a
number of people from developing countries so IPCC can claim
good geographic representation. This has made our task harder as
CLAs as we are working with about 50% good people who can write
reasonable assessments and 50% who probably can't. Getting them all
involved has been a challenge, and we've not really succeeded.
Our LAs are unlikely to cause us much of a problem. Problems will
start when the first order draft (after our next meeting in May) goes
our for review by all and sundry (any scientists anywhere) - sometime
in the late summer. This is when the skeptics and scientists who'll
think we've misrepresented or ignored their views get a chance to
tell us. We have to respond to all. We have an excellent group of
Review Editors to help us here - when we meet in NZ in Dec 05.
I expect that will be an interesting meeting. Getting our less
good LAs involved will be an issue. Susan Solomon is keen for
them to be involved, but many lack global perspectives and a
sense of what the big issues are.
Issues are (and could have been predicted before we started) :
1. How much has the world warmed? Errors attached to all observations.
Issues of representativeness - why urbanizaton and land-use changes are
not that important. A small group of skeptics will likely have a go at us
on this. I hope we have all our bases covered.
2. Surface warming yet lower troposphere not warming as much. A US
report (CCSP) Kevin can tell about will help here, but our likely conclusion
that this issue is resolved will likely come in for lots of flak. Explaining
why we think we're right will be the biggest issue - making sense of
diverse datasets and saying why we think some are right and some
have problems.
3. Extremes. There is a lot more information out there this time from
initiatives made by earlier assessments. Bringing all this together is the
challenge here, and saying defensible statements.
4. We have a chance this time to go into a lot more detail about
indices (ENSO,NAO etc) and their roles.
We will be endorsing GCOS initiatives to improve the network
and saying that reanalyses in the future have to really consider
issues of changing data inputs. They can do this by running periods
with/without specific datasets to see effects. Getting people to think
this way is coming, but resources are an issue. Computers getting
faster,but we must use this to address the above issues,rather than
using the additional speed to improve resolution. We can do both
but we need good planning and it will all take time.
If you want to clarify anything then email me again.
We are 7 hours ahead and I tend to work 8 till 4.30 which
makes catching me difficult.You can call me at home
say 7-9pm (UK, so noon-2pm yours) most nights (except
Tuesday and Fridays). Home phone is +44 1953 605643 .

Cheers
Phil

At 23:26 02/12/2004, you wrote:

Dear Philip,
I'm completing a short article about the IPCC process for UCAR's biennial Highlights
report (aimed at a broad audience). I understand you and Kevin Trenberth are
co-convening lead authors on a chapter involving observations of global climate.
If you have a few minutes, I'd very much appreciate including a few words with your
perspective on:
--The IPCC process itself. What do you see as the main benefits and challenges? How
do you wrangle a varied group of authors in a limited amount of time?
--The chapter now taking shape. What are the key science issues this time around? Is
there hope in the short term for improving our global observation network for climate?
How about the long term?
Please feel free to respond in some detail, but even if you only have time for a
sentence or two, that would be very helpful. If you'd prefer to call me, I'm here at
303-xxxxxxxxxxxx (USA) between 9 AM and 6 PM mountain time on Friday. I believe we're seven
hours behind the UK.
Thanks very much for your help, Philip.
cheers,
--Bob Henson, UCAR Communications
PS: Our last issue of Highlights is on line at
[1]http://www.ucar.edu/communications/highlights/2002

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxxxxxxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxxxxxxxxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email xxxxxxxxxxxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

rather a lot of emails......

An early 2003 one.. needing somebody to communicate with industry...

5349: ".....need to identify someone specific to work on the communication to industry end)and I would be happy to approach Bob May or Ron Oxburgh..."

Nov 22, 2011 at 12:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Unfortunately, it won't make any difference, I've realised, after this paraphrased conversation with a (intelligent, engineering educated) colleague:

Me: Climategate 2 has just happened?

Him: Yeah, I think the people who deny climate change just used it to rubbish the whole lot

Me: You're talking to someone who is a skeptic

Him: Oh. Well, you know, you can always take these things out of context

Me: Seriously, there has been good science done discrediting the hockey stick

Him: You can always find something

Me: These stuff in these emails that look like they are avoiding FOI, and thats a criminal offence

Him: Yeh that shouldn't really go on, but it's a side issue

Me: If it's all true, then I'll accept it, but I hate having bad science shoved down my throat for political reasons

Him: I hope you are right and it's all rubbish

Nov 22, 2011 at 12:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

Matthu included this one in his selection below, but it's a bit of a standout, and obviously the Bish has a direct interest:

"I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I
could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures.
[...] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is
precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.
<3373> Bradley: "

Nov 22, 2011 at 12:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterCumbrian Lad

matthu, you make a very good point:-

"Some of my favourite (unverified) quotations:"

"(unverified)"

First we find out if they are genuine and then if they are "in context".

Time, it is out there now, gone viral, no need for an OTT response, in a few days we may have a considered overall insight.

Nov 22, 2011 at 11:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterGreen Sand

It's actually quite heartening in a way - one of my frustrations with this whole thing is : how can I believe scientists who stand behind Mann's obviously very flaky work? Let's face it - Mann is the root of all this, with MBH98 and MBH99

And the answer appears to be - a lot of them think it's tosh too - but for career/ political / rank-closing / right-side reasons, they chose not to make that view public. But at least they are just being biased, and not stupid.

Nov 22, 2011 at 11:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

Some of my favourite (unverified) quotations:

Jones:

Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital – hence my comment about the tornadoes group.

Jones:

Useful ones [for IPCC] might be Baldwin, Benestad (written on the solar/cloud issue – on the right side, i.e anti-Svensmark), Bohm, Brown, Christy

Humphrey/DEFRA:

I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.

Jones:

We don’t really want the bullshit and optimistic stuff that Michael has written [...] We’ll have to cut out some of his stuff.

Wils:

What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably [...]

Crowley:

I am not convinced that the “truth” is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships

Wilson:

I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures. [...] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.

Bradley:

I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”.

Cook:

I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly cannot be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead.

Barnett:

[IPCC AR5 models] clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer

Jones:

Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds.

Jones:

I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process

[ Popcorn has just sold out ]

Nov 22, 2011 at 11:43 AM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

Check out Tallblokes place, he has posted the README contents:-

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/breaking-news-foia-2011-has-arrived/#more-3471

Going to be an interesting few days, buy popcorn, sit back and wait!

Nov 22, 2011 at 11:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterGreen Sand

Further comments at CA re FOIA2011:-

Lucy Skywalker:

"Checked for viruses, malware, comes out clean.

It looks as if another miracle has happened"

-----------------------------------------------------

Tallbloke:-

"Yep, I scanned it too. Clean as far as I can see. It’s the real deal! :)"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now we wait and find out what is in there!

Nov 22, 2011 at 11:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterGreen Sand

Lucy Skywalker in a comment on CA has looked at it and her view is "Look like another miracle has happened!" So - there may be interesting times ahead ...

I wonder whether this is a release from the servers under the control of the Norfolk Constabulary? I do hope the Norfolk Constabulary are on top of this. It would be very embarrasing if they weren't...

Nov 22, 2011 at 11:19 AM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

PostCreate a New Post

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