UNC Biology Dept. Prof. John Bruno blogs on the
"SeaMonster" blog site. He recently posted a series of articles on sea level, which
contained several striking errors. He's censoring comments there, so
I'm correcting them here.
www.WattsUpWithThat.com is the
indispensible blog site of climatologist Anthony Watts, the #1 climate science site on the Web
a web site run by Anthony Watts and an army of volunteers,
dedicated to an exhaustive survey and analysis of Climate Surface Stations
in the United States. It sounds dull, but it definitely is not!
The so-called "Rahmstorf Method" for predicting accelerated sea level
rise has been thoroughly demolished by a number of other scientists, and by
the progression of time. Here are some relevant links: http://tinyurl.com/rahmstuff
Revolt at NASA! In an unprecedented slap at NASA's promotion
of climate alarmism, 49 former astronauts, scientists & engineers, including former
Johnson Space Center Director Chris Kraft, and seven Apollo astronauts,
is on the wrong side of science.
The Minority Staff of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works has released the definitive report on the CRU leaked emails: "'Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy" (Feb. 23, 2010). It is 73 pages long, plus 10 pages of footnotes with hyperlinks.
the first six International Conferences on Climate Change, 2008 - 2011. (See also PJTV.)
Climate Science In Denial (or here), by Prof. Richard S. Lindzen, MIT.
"Global warming alarmists have been discredited, but you wouldn't know it from the rhetoric this Earth Day." Apr. 22, 2010.
(A slightly different version is here.)
On June 26, 2009, the Competitive Enterprise Institute made public a leaked internal study
on climate science which was suppressed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Leaked internal EPA email messages indicated that the report was kept under wraps and its
author silenced because of pressure to support the Obama Administration's agenda of
The report finds that EPA, by adopting the IPCC 2007 Fourth Assessment report ("AR4"),
relied on outdated research and ignored major new developments. Those developments include
a continued decline in global temperatures, a new consensus that future hurricanes will
not be more frequent or intense, and new findings that water vapor will moderate, rather
than exacerbate, temperature increases.
As usual, Anthony Watts has the story.
PROGRESS! Although the Institute Of Physics has not rescinded its 2007 endorsement of the IPCC's
conclusions, they've recently issued a scathing
critique of the IPCC, the UEA CRU, etc..
Anthropogenic Global Warming has become quite a joke. During President Obama's State of the Union address, when he referred to "the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change," everybody laughed! Even Pelosi & Biden giggled.
UPDATED!www.co2science.org is the web site of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and its weekly CO2 Science newsletter.
Here's an excellent article of theirs about CO2 and crop yields.
ClimateChangeReconsidered.org is the site of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), organized by Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service
and Greenland ice sheets are in no danger of vanishing.
Most sources agree that Greenland is losing ice mass, but very slowly.
Sorensen et al (2010) calculated from ICESat
measurements of Greenland for the period 2003-2008 that it was losing ice mass at a rate of only 167 to 268 Gt/yr
(equivalent to +0.46 to +0.74 mm/yr sea-level rise).
Schwartz (2014) found an even lower rate, 162 to 193 Gt/yr
(equivalent to +0.45 to +0.53 mm/yr sea-level rise).
It's not clear whether Antarctica is losing or gaining ice mass. Ice accumulation and loss are
very, very close to being in balance there.
Based on GRACE, Shepherd 2012 concluded that Antarctica ice mass change since 1992 has averaged -71 ±83 Gt/yr,
which means they couldn't tell whether it's actually gaining or losing mass.
Based on ICESat, Zwally 2012 found that Antarctica is gaining ice mass:
+27 to +59 Gt/yr (over five years), or +70 to +170 Gt/yr (over 19 years).
Based on CryoSat, McMillan et al (2014)
found that Antarctica is losing between 79 and 241 Gt/yr of ice mass, though that's based on only three years of data.
The range of those numbers when error bars are included is from +170 Gt/yr to -241 Gt/yr, which
is equivalent to just +0.47 to -0.67 mm/yr
sea-level change. In other words, although we don't know whether Antarctica is gaining or losing
ice mass, we do know that the rate, either way, is so low that it is having very little effect on
sea-level (less than 3 inches per century).
What's more, even if Antarctica is losing ice mass, on net, it's not at all clear that CO2 or even climate is the
cause. The cause might be
at least in part.
Here's a graph of global sea ice extent since 1979:
Compared to the 1979-2008 average, global sea ice is currently down a few percent. Of course,
total sea ice extent varies by about 30% over the course of a year, so the recent down-tick
isn't very significant. What's more, Nimbus-5 measurements (for 4.5 years starting in December
1972) indicated that sea ice extent was increasing during the early and mid-1970s, due to the
1960s-1970s cooling (which led to the
ice age scare). So 1979 was a peak year for Arctic sea ice, as was noted in the IPCC's
1st (1990) and
That makes the current small ice extent downtick even less significant.
(Unfortunately, all the sea ice measurements from SeaSat-1 and Nimbus-6 [starting in 1975] have apparently been lost; thank you, NASA.)
Speaking of Mann's "Hockey Stick," it illustrates how corrupt and politicized the field of
climatology has become that for years after McIntyre & McKitrick discredited the
"hockey stick" (in 2003), so-called "leading researchers" in the field continued to
that it was real.
One answer to that question is that "negative feedback" mechanisms, unanticipated by IPCC-favored computer climate models,
such as the Pacific Heat Vent,
and increased surface albedo from expanding sea ice near Antarctica,
work to stabilize the earth's temperature and sea level.
(The IPCC-favored models dubiously assume that strong positive feedbacks multiply the minor warming effect of additional atmospheric CO2.)
Consensus myth:Over 31,000 scientists (and engineers in relevant disciplines) have signed a petition declaring their disagreement with the AGW hypothesis, They declared that: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide,
methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause
catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.
Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon
dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments
of the Earth.”
The signers of
the Leipzig Declaration
are scientists who declare that "...there does not exist today a
general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming
from rising levels of carbon dioxide. In fact, most climate specialists
now agree that actual observations from both weather satellites and
balloon-borne radiosondes show no current warming whatsoever."
The hundreds of scientists who signed the
Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change
likewise declare that, "plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a
dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources... [and] there
is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in
the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change."
What Scientists Really Think About Global Warming, by S. Robert Lichter.
Harris polled 500 leading American Meteorological and Geophysical scientists in early 2007,
and even back then there was no consensus. They found that: "97% agree that 'global average temperatures have increased' during the past century.
But not everyone attributes that rise to human activity. A slight majority (52%) believe
this warming was human-induced, 30% see it as the result of natural temperature
fluctuations and the rest are unsure." (More details here
Could it be that the imminent demise of glaciers is Due to... a Typo!?! The IPCC has been claiming Himalayan glaciers could be gone by 2035. The research paper they supposedly used concluded 2350.Oooops!
I found the bullet-list below (entitled "The Emails....'we report....you decide'") in the discussion page about a (rather pathetic) Washington Post / MSNBC article by Juliet Eilperin on this topic. Wow, talk about a smoking gun!
(Note: that WP/MSNBC article is weak, but it isn't as bad as the AP article that the N&O and the N&R used, and which the N&O published along with this blatant propaganda by the AP's notorious Seth Borenstein.)
The Global Warming Alarmists' big problem (and Al Gore's) is that facts are stubborn things, and the fact is that the earth hasn't been behaving as their models predicted. Ground station measurements, ocean temperature measurements (Argo Buoys), radiosonde measurements, and satellite-based measurements show that the Earth hasn't warmed at all in the last decade. In fact, most measurements indicate that the Earth has been cooling slightly.
The GW alarmists' response has been obfuscation (e.g., by calling it "climate change" instead of "global warming"), manipulation of the data to hide the truth, and heavy-handed suppression of the growing number of scientists who don't buy the Party Line. The alarmists even habitually call those scientists "deniers," in a contemptible attempt to paint them like Holocaust deniers.
Now, it is true that there was measurable warming of the Earth in the last quarter of the 20th century, though not outside of historical norms for climate fluctuation. It is possible that the more recent decade-long halt in warming is due to the current (& surprising to everyone) extended pause in the solar sunspot cycle offsetting man-made warming. If so, then we'll presumably see resumed warming when the solar sunspot cycle finally resumes. But even if that is so, it means that the alarmists' computer models, upon which they rely for their dire predictions, are badly flawed, because their models insist that such solar variations should have very little effect, and should not have caused the Earth's warming to cease.
Of course, the news that the predicted global warming, and the problems which Gore et al predicted would go along with it, like ever worsening hurricane seasons, are not actually happening, is wonderful! It should make any sane, reasonable person happy. (BTW, did you notice how few hurricanes we had this year?)
But Gore and the GW alarmists have bet their careers on their dire predictions, so good news for everybody else is bad news for them. They are in such a panic that they are resorting to scientific fraud to hide the truth from the public, while desperately clinging to the hope that the Earth will soon resume warming before most people notice that it ever stopped, so that they won't look like Chicken Littles, or the Pons & Fleischmanns of climatology.
If you want to download the leaked documents, google for FOI2009.zip, which should be 64,936,854 bytes long, and contains 4662 files. Or let me know, I have a copy, which I can send you. (BTW, I think that "FOI" stands for "Freedom Of Information.")
BTW, have you noticed how the folks who cheered the Watergate "deep throat" leaker, and smirked at the news of Sarah Palin's hacked email account, are not in the least bit amused about this story? It was the Washington Post which published the "Pentagon Papers," but when the shoe is on the other foot, they spin it to make the crooks sound like innocent victims who have been violated by a cruel crime. Sheesh!
The United States has been taking ground station temperature measurements
since 1880. There are substantial problems with those measurements, which
have caused many stations to show fake increases in temperature, due to station
siting problems, and as urban sprawl has overtaken many measurement sites
with "urban heat islands." Nevertheless, the U.S. ground station temperature
records are still the best and longest-running such records in the world.
Oddly enough, NASA's climate alarmists are apparently the keepers of this
ground station temperature data. They've not done a very good job of it.
They keep revising the figures, even for years in the distant past. But they
consistently show that the six warmest years on record in the 48 contiguous
United States were:
(I chose the "six warmest" (instead of five or ten) because it happens that these six years are the warmest
on record in all the versions of the NASA temperature table which I could find,
though the order of the six varies according to which version of the table you use.) 5/27/2010 Update: NASA has been stonewalling FOIA requests for the original
data from which these temperature averages since Aug. 2007, and now the CEI has
for the data. So perhaps we may someday find out just what they've been doing to
come up with these numbers.
Note that, in spite of the ground stations' tendency to overstate warming
(due to urbanization of the monitoring sites, etc.), they nevertheless indicate
that five of the six warmest years were at least a decade ago, and three
of the six warmest years were at least 75 years ago.
(Note: these are U.S. temperatures; worldwide average temperatures are calculated differently.)
Looking at that data, you'll find that the last 35 years has been a warm period,
as were the 1930s, but the 1960s and 1970s were a cool period -- so cool that
by the early 1970s environmentalists were warning of an impending catastrophic
ice age, which they agreed would be due to air pollution.
Marc Sheppard's American Thinker article explains how the infamous “hide the decline” remark was about a huge problem with the AGW alarmists' methodology for teasing temperature information from “proxies,” like tree rings. The problem is that the proxy info indicated that temperatures had been declining during the last 1/5 of the 20th century, when most other data (especially including ground station measurements) showed that temperatures were rising significantly.
That means their methodology for deducing temperatures from proxies DOES NOT WORK. It has been falsified by actual temperature measurements in the 1980s and 1990s.
That is critically important, because that temperature-from-proxy methodology is the ENTIRE basis for the now-infamous “hockey stick” graph. It was the SOLE basis for erasing the Medieval Warm Period from history.
The truth, as revealed by these emails, is that the IPCC's leading climatologists were LYING. They were telling the world that there was no doubt whatsoever that late 20th century warming was unprecedented in history, because of the assured reliability of their proxy-derived temperature reconstructions, and that anyone who disagreed was a “denier,” implicitly akin in disreputableness to Holocaust Deniers. But the truth is that they KNEW full well that their methodology for deducing temperatures from proxies was unreliable, and they struggled mightily to “hide” that inconvenient truth.
This scandal is HUGE. It may eclipse Piltdown Man as the worst scientific scandal in history.
Most of the leading climate research institutions & key players in the IPCC (Mann, Jones, Briffa, Kelly, Schmidt, Overpeck, Santer, Osborn, Karl) etc., are up to their eyebrows in this. The field of climate change research is a cesspool of intellectual dishonesty.
Their models don't work. The models have been falsified by the temperature record, yet the so-called “leading” climate researchers doggedly stick by them. Defending the ideology & political agenda to which they are wedded has become more important to them than telling the Truth.
These guys have abandoned the scientific method!
You probably know how the Method is supposed to work:
1. The scientist observes the available data.
2. He formulates hypotheses to explain the observations.
3. He derives testable predictions from the hypotheses.
4. He devises tests or observations to test the testable predictions.
5. He does the tests or makes the observations.
6. If the test results match the predictions, he cries “eureka!” and publishes his theory, along with his data and detailed calculations, so that other scientists can reproduce and verify his work.
7. If the test results fail to match the predictions, the theory is said to be “falsified,” so he discards or revises it and starts over at step 2, with the new observations or test results added to the body of available data.
Instead of discarding or revising their falsified models, these so-called scientists revise the data!!!!
And then they delete the original, raw data, so that nobody else can check their work.
That is the WORST kind of scientific dishonesty.
W/r/t the deleted data, I cite two documents to prove my accusation:
1. The first was email document 1107454306 from Jones to Mann. Jones says that if McIntyre requests the station data under the Freedom Of Information Act, he (Jones) will delete it rather than let McIntyre see it: http://www.burtonsys.com/FOIA/1107454306.txt
Note that to do that without getting in trouble with the law they would have to lie and claim it had been deleted earlier… a prospect which apparently does not trouble them at all.
2. This Sunday Times (of London) article about the declaration from UAE CRU that they cannot comply with legal demands for the raw temperature data because they have deleted much of it: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
And, whaddya know, they say it was deleted long ago (though they'd previously given a variety of other excuses for refusing FOI requests for the same data).
The bottom line is that these guys have proven themselves to be utterly untrustworthy. You can't believe anything they say. (See Luke 16:10)
They've been claiming, stridently, that the earth is still warming. But if you read the leaked emails, you will see that even they know that isn't so. They may expect the warming to resume, or they may doubt their measurements, but they KNOW that the temperature measurements indicate that the warming has ceased.
The earth ceased warming at least a decade ago.
Of all the actual temperature records (as opposed to so-called “proxies,” which are far less reliable), the records which showed the MOST warming were the surface station measurements, the most complete record of which are from the USA, where we've been making such measurements since 1880.
Argo buoys (deep ocean temperature measurements), radiosonde (atmospheric temperature measurements), sea surface temperature measurements, and satellite-based measurements ALL failed to show much if any warming (or at least they failed to show warming until the people discredited by this scandal “corrected” the data). But, we were told, the surface station measurements nevertheless proved the warming.
But now we know of widespread problems with the surface stations, which cause them to significantly overstate warming (see http://www.surfacestations.org). And then McIntyre discovered a major blunder by NASA, which had caused them to misreport 21st century surface station temperatures as warmer than they actually were. (And he found it despite the inexcusable fact that NASA/Hansen wouldn't allow him access to the raw data!!!)
When NASA corrected that error 2.5 years ago, it made 1934 the warmest year on record.
That's right. Not 2008. Not 2007. Not even 1998. 1934!
Still-unexplained “corrections” subsequently made by NASA/Hansen on the U.S. surface station data have bumped 1934 back down to 3rd-warmest. The surface station data for the USA keeps getting revised in suspicious ways by Hansen & Co. at NASA. Yet, even if their latest numbers are correct (which is doubtful), it still shows that 5 of the 6 warmest (we used to say “mildest”) years on record since 1880 were more than a decade ago, and 3 of the 6 warmest were 75+ years ago!!!
Facts like that kind of make the current warming hysteria seem silly, don't they?
The bottom line is that the overwhelming weight of the evidence indicates that:
1) The leading climate change alarmists are utterly untrustworthy. And,
2) In the last quarter of the 20th century the earth was, indeed, warming, though not as much as the alarmists would have you believe. However,
3) Temperatures peaked in the late 1990s, plateaued, and haven't significantly increased since.
4) The “settled science” nonsense predicting accelerating warming is totally discredited.
Those are the FACTS.
(Facts #3 & #4 should be cause for rejoicing, BTW, if you care more about the welfare of mankind and her planet than you do about being right!)
Now, there are many possible explanations for fact #3 (the end of warming at least a decade ago). NONE of them change the fact that the IPCC/alarmist models have been falsified. But there are still plausible scenarios for resumed warming, and continued concern.
One possibility is that the models greatly underestimated the effects of the sun, and the current unexpectedly long lull in the solar cycle has caused a cooling effect that is masking an underlying warming trend. If that is the case, then the warming should resume when the solar cycle resumes. If that happens, then we'll need to grapple with the warming issue once again.
Another possibility for which there is evidence is that the models grossly underestimated the effects of CFCs. CFC levels are now declining, which could be the cause of the temperature decline. If that is the case, then warming will not resume when the solar cycle resumes.
Or it could be a combination of both of those causes, and/or some others.
But, regardless of what happens, the Kyoto/Copenhagen/Cap-and-tax schemes can't possibly be a solution. Even if additional CO2 were actually causing dangerous amounts of warming, there is NO possibility that these schemes could do more than slightly delay the effects.
Even Hansen realizes that. He's a true believer in CO2 as the main AGW villain (I think he's dead wrong), but he recognizes that the slight CO2 reductions achievable by these schemes can't solve the problem. He says the Copenhagen approach is “fundamentally wrong,” and hopes the talks collapse.
Like a stopped clock, even James Hansen is accidentally right once in a while.
#205 - Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:34 AM EST The Emails...."we report....you decide"
Phil Jones writes to
University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using
her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier
to push greenery there now SB-C has retired. (1256765544)
Michael Mann discusses how to
destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers. (1047388489)
Tim Osborn discusses how data
are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results
(0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!
Phil Jones encourages
colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request. (1212063122)
Phil Jones says he has use
Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each
series"...to hide the decline". Real Climate says
"hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase. (0942777075)
Letter to The Times from
climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace. (0872202064)
Mann thinks he will contact
BBC's Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to
publish a vaguely sceptical article. (1255352257)
Kevin Trenberth says they
can't account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty
that they can't. (1255352257)
Tom Wigley says that Lindzen
and Choi's paper is crap. (1257532857)
Tom Wigley says that von
Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate
Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they
should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation.
Says that whether this is true or not doesn't matter. Says they need to
get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch
Ben Santer says (presumably
jokingly!) he's "tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap" out of
sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)
Mann tells Jones that it
would be nice to '"contain" the putative Medieval Warm Period'.
Tom Wigley tells Jones that
the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this
might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands. (1257546975)
Tom Wigley say that Keith
Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although
also says it's insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre's
sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well
replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data
withholding issue is hot potato, since many "good" scientists condemn
Briffa is funding Russian
dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal bank account so as
to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research. (0826209667)
Kevin Trenberth says
climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the
effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget.
Geoengineering is not possible. (1255523796)
Mann discusses tactics for
screening and delaying postings at Real Climate. (1139521913)
Tom Wigley discusses how to
deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold
onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU
will be "hiding behind them". (1106338806)
Overpeck has no recollection
of saying that he wanted to "get rid of the Medieval Warm
Period". Thinks he may have been quoted out of context. (1206628118)
Mann launches RealClimate to
the scientific community. (1102687002)
Santer complaining about FoI
requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab
management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of
people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says
the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case). (1228330629)
Rob Wilson concerned about
upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word things
Briffa says he is sick to
death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few
poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against
something else like the "increasing trend of self-opinionated
verbiage" he produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems. (1024334440)
Overpeck tells Team to write
emails as if they would be made public. Discussion of what to do with
McIntyre finding an error in Kaufman paper. Kaufman's admits error and
wants to correct. Appears interested in Climate Audit
Santer says he will no longer
publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being
made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new
editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from
Reaction to McIntyre's 2005
paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the
publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper's editor
James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says
that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels
to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers -
Saiers was subsequently ousted]
Later on Mann refers
to the leak at GRL being plugged. (1132094873)
Jones says he's found a way
around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland. (1210367056)
Wigley says Keenan's fraud
accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)
Jones calls for Wahl and
Ammann to try to change the received date on their alleged refutation of
McIntyre [presumably so it can get into AR4] (1189722851)
Mann tells Jones that he is
on board and that they are working towards a common goal. (0926010576)
Mann sends calibration
residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they
shouldn't be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry
they don't want in the hands of those who might distort it. (1059664704)
Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of
pressure to produce a tidy picture of "apparent unprecedented warming
in a thousand years or more in the proxy data". [This appears
to be the politics leading the science] Briffa says it was just as
warm a thousand years ago. (0938018124)
Jones says that UK climate
organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice
from the Information Commissioner[!] (1219239172)
Mann tells Revkin that
McIntyre is not to be trusted. (1254259645)
Revkin quotes von Storch as
saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in
Funkhouser says he's pulled
every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn't think it's
productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has. (0843161829)
Wigley discusses fixing an
issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results
look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)
Jones says he and Kevin will
keep some papers out of the next IPCC report. (1089318616)
Tom Wigley tells Mann that a
figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the
match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there
have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors
and IPCC. (1255553034)
Grant Foster putting together
a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible
reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know
what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting. (1249503274)
David Parker discussing the
possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index.
Thinks this shouldn't be done because it confuses people and because it
will make things look less warm. (1105019698)
Briffa discusses an sceptic
article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially he needs to put
together a case to reject it (1054756929)
Ben Santer, referring to
McIntyre says he hopes Mr "I'm not entirely there in the head"
will not be at the AGU. (1233249393)
Tree physiologist Rod Savidge complains that,
"What troubles me even more than the inexactness attending chronological
estimates is how much absolute nonsense -- really nothing but imaginative
speculation -- about the environment of the past is being deduced from
tree rings and published in dendrochronology journals."
and related discussion here.)
Note that it's not just the conversations that are damning. The leaked computer code is, too.
Just look at the blatant data fabrication in
(the programming language is IDL): http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1447
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,Oooops!
That appears to be a series of arbitrary temperature adjustments, to cool the warm 1930s, and warm subsequent years.
Temperatures for years 1400 through 1919 are not adjusted.
1924 is cooled slightly, by 0.1 × 0.75 = 0.075.
1929 is cooled by 0.25 × 0.75.
1934 is cooled by 0.3 × 0.75.
1939 is not adjusted.
1944 is cooled slightly, by 0.1 × 0.75.
1949 is warmed by 0.3 × 0.75.
1954 is warmed by 0.8 × 0.75.
1959 is warmed by 1.2 × 0.75.
1964 is warmed by 1.7 × 0.75.
1969 is warmed by 2.5 × 0.75 = 1.95.
1974 and later are warmed by 2.6 × 0.75.
(Between those specific years, the adjusments are linearly interpolated.)
"Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll back of the industrial age."
-Dr. Richard Lindzen (Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, MIT)