SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
1,126
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − ==Global Warming Methodology== − {{cquote|the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit about <100 year extra-tropical NH temperature variability (at least as far as we believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know f***-all about what the >100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know f***-all).[Ed Cook][http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/04/the-contextual-collection-of-climategate-2-0-quotes/]}} − {{cquote|Sorry for sounding a bit testy here. I've been fielding a whole raft of questions, comments, and criticisms from Mike Mann, Tom Crowley, and Malcolm Hughes. Some of them useful, many of them tiresome or besides the point. I never wanted to get involved in this quixotic game of producing the next great NH temperature reconstruction because of the professional politics and sensitivities involved...I should also say that the amount of ignorance about tree rings in the global change/paleo/modeling community is staggering given what has been published. Like it or not, they simply don't read our papers.). − ... − This all reinforces my determination to leave this NH/global temperature reconstruction junk behind me once I get this paper submitted. It's not worth the aggravation. [Ed Cook][http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/warmist-ed-cook-all-reinforces-my.html]}} − {{cquote|I am increasingly unconvinced by the majority of climate impact studies - including some of those I am involved in - and feel we are not really giving the right message to our audiences.[Mike Hulme][http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/great-quote-by-uea-warmist-mike-hulme.html]}} − {{cquote|All methods strongly underestimates the amplitude of low-frequency variability and trends. This means that it is almost impossible to conclude from reconstruction studies that the present period is warmer than any period in the reconstructed period.[Bo Christiansen][http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/04/the-contextual-collection-of-climategate-2-0-quotes/]}} − {{cquote|From: GIORGI FILIPPO To: Chapter 10 LAs -- Congbin Fu , GIORGI FILIPPO , Bruce Hewitson , Mike Hulme , Jens Christensen , Linda Mearns , Richard Jones , Hans von Storch , Peter Whetton Subject: On "what to do?" Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 16:58:02 +0200 ???(MET DST) − − ...First let me say that in general, as my own opinion, I feel rather unconfortable about using not only unpublished but also un reviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions). I realize that chapter 9 is including SRES stuff, and thus we can and need to do that too, but the fact is that in doing so the rules of IPCC have been softened to the point that in this way the IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science (which is its proclaimed goal) but production of results. The softened condition that the models themself have to be published does not even apply because the Japanese model for example is very different from the published one which gave results not even close to the actual outlier version (in the old dataset the CCC model was the outlier). Essentially, I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes. I think this will set a dangerous precedent which might mine the IPCC credibility, and I am a bit unconfortable that now nearly everybody seems to think that it is just ok to do this. Anyways, this is only my opinion for what it is worth.[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/01/don-miss-this-devastating-criticism-of.html]}} − {{cquote|Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip. I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip". [Tom Wigley, to Phil Jones and Ben Santer][http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/climategate-email-warmist-tom-wigley.html]}} − {{cquote|Date: Thu Mar 27 16:46:23 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Truncating tem series before filtering to: Mike Salmon − − Mike, Good. I doubt if any of them will notice. Cheers Phil − At 16:44 27/03/2008, you wrote: − − Hi Phil, [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ now has the final year removed if incomplete. Batten hatches and prepare for Skeptix! Mike − − Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 ??? School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 ??? University of East Anglia Norwich Email ???@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/email-3288-mike-salmon-cru-temperature.html]}} Line 45:
Line 26: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
The following are some of the controversial ClimateGate emails, grouped by category:
The following are some of the controversial ClimateGate emails, grouped by category:
==Dendrochronology==
==Dendrochronology==
{{cquote|Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data ‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it! If we write the Holocene forum article then we’ll have to be critical or our paper as well as Crowley’s!
{{cquote|Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data ‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it! If we write the Holocene forum article then we’ll have to be critical or our paper as well as Crowley’s!
==Ice Cores==
==Ice Cores==
==Global Warming Methodology==
{{cquote|the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit about <100 year extra-tropical NH temperature variability (at least as far as we believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know f***-all about what the >100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know f***-all).[Ed Cook][http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/04/the-contextual-collection-of-climategate-2-0-quotes/]}}
{{cquote|Sorry for sounding a bit testy here. I've been fielding a whole raft of questions, comments, and criticisms from Mike Mann, Tom Crowley, and Malcolm Hughes. Some of them useful, many of them tiresome or besides the point. I never wanted to get involved in this quixotic game of producing the next great NH temperature reconstruction because of the professional politics and sensitivities involved...I should also say that the amount of ignorance about tree rings in the global change/paleo/modeling community is staggering given what has been published. Like it or not, they simply don't read our papers.).
...
This all reinforces my determination to leave this NH/global temperature reconstruction junk behind me once I get this paper submitted. It's not worth the aggravation. [Ed Cook][http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/warmist-ed-cook-all-reinforces-my.html]}}
{{cquote|I am increasingly unconvinced by the majority of climate impact studies - including some of those I am involved in - and feel we are not really giving the right message to our audiences.[Mike Hulme][http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/great-quote-by-uea-warmist-mike-hulme.html]}}
{{cquote|All methods strongly underestimates the amplitude of low-frequency variability and trends. This means that it is almost impossible to conclude from reconstruction studies that the present period is warmer than any period in the reconstructed period.[Bo Christiansen][http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/04/the-contextual-collection-of-climategate-2-0-quotes/]}}
{{cquote|From: GIORGI FILIPPO To: Chapter 10 LAs -- Congbin Fu , GIORGI FILIPPO , Bruce Hewitson , Mike Hulme , Jens Christensen , Linda Mearns , Richard Jones , Hans von Storch , Peter Whetton Subject: On "what to do?" Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 16:58:02 +0200 ???(MET DST)
...First let me say that in general, as my own opinion, I feel rather unconfortable about using not only unpublished but also un reviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions). I realize that chapter 9 is including SRES stuff, and thus we can and need to do that too, but the fact is that in doing so the rules of IPCC have been softened to the point that in this way the IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science (which is its proclaimed goal) but production of results. The softened condition that the models themself have to be published does not even apply because the Japanese model for example is very different from the published one which gave results not even close to the actual outlier version (in the old dataset the CCC model was the outlier). Essentially, I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes. I think this will set a dangerous precedent which might mine the IPCC credibility, and I am a bit unconfortable that now nearly everybody seems to think that it is just ok to do this. Anyways, this is only my opinion for what it is worth.[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/01/don-miss-this-devastating-criticism-of.html]}}
{{cquote|Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip. I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip". [Tom Wigley, to Phil Jones and Ben Santer][http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/climategate-email-warmist-tom-wigley.html]}}
{{cquote|Date: Thu Mar 27 16:46:23 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Truncating tem series before filtering to: Mike Salmon
Mike, Good. I doubt if any of them will notice. Cheers Phil
At 16:44 27/03/2008, you wrote:
Hi Phil, [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ now has the final year removed if incomplete. Batten hatches and prepare for Skeptix! Mike
Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 ??? School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 ??? University of East Anglia Norwich Email ???@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/email-3288-mike-salmon-cru-temperature.html]}}
==Freedom of Information Act Sidestepping==
==Freedom of Information Act Sidestepping==