Husk mig
▼ Indhold

Hackede CRU-mails



Side 1 af 19123>>>
Hackede CRU-mails20-11-2009 00:30
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4090)
[branner: indlægget, og den følgende debat, er flyttet fra denne tråd, 21/11-09]


Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK


Hadley er blevet Hacket og rippet for 61 megabytes (Nope: "The zip file in question expands to 4662 files of 157Mb. " ) datafiler mails og andet. Det er sket via Rusland.
Vi kommer til at høre mere... SPørgsmålet er naturligvis ægthed etc, men indtil videre forlyder det at tingene med emailadresser, dataserier and the lot er ægte. Det vil givetvis søges benægtet - hvad ellers kan Jones/Hadley gøre?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/


Thanks, Niels A N
Redigeret af branner d. 21-11-2009 20:35
20-11-2009 00:51
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4090)
Her en anden mail:

From: Phil Jones
To: mann@xxx
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
Cc: "raymond s. bradley" , "Malcolm Hughes"

Mike, Ray and Malcolm,
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use
this to our advantage to get the series updated !
Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere
rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don't realise that Moberg et al used the
Jones and Moberg updated series !
Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed
that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn't bother
with that. Also ignored Francis' comment about all the other series looking similar
to MBH.
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !


All in all er jeg nu lidt "skeptisk" mht hvad der egentligt kommer ud af denne lille sag med Hadley filer...
Redigeret d. 20-11-2009 01:43
20-11-2009 10:05
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4090)
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/hadleycru-says-leaked-data-is-real.html

The director of Britain's leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition tonight that his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine.
20-11-2009 11:19
manse42
★★★☆☆
(633)
Det er så skræmmende at jeg lige nu stadig tænker at det er fup!

Hele svineriet kommer til at give så meget bagslag at tilliden til videnskaben skal bruge flere år for at komme på et tålelig niveau igen. i mellemtiden kan højreradikale-ligeglad-med-miljøet-typer skalte og valte som de har lyst til.

KFL, rick-uk, CBH, branner. hvad med en kommentar? Tavsheden opfatter jeg som skam.
20-11-2009 11:25
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4090)
Der er ingen tvivl om at vi har fat i ægte materiale, har igennem utallige sider, NO WAY kunne nogen som helst kreere dette værk, NO WAY. Og som nævnt så er det også meldt ud officielt at Hadley er blevet Hacket.

Men der kan stadig være problemer med materialet. Manse du har ret man kan aldrig vide.

Her brev mellem Ed Cook og Keith Briffa ikke så lang tid efter Hockey sticken blev brugt af IPCC:

From: Ed Cook
To: Keith Briffa
Subject: Re: Esper et al. and Mike Mann
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 13:20:40 -0400
Hi Keith,
Of course, I agree with you. We both know the probable flaws in
Mike's [Michael Mann] recon, particularly as it relates to the tropical stuff. Your response is also why I chose not to read the published version of his
letter. It would be too aggravating. The only way to deal with this
whole issue is to show in a detailed study that his estimates are
clearly deficient in multi-centennial power, something that you
actually did in your Perspectives piece, even if it was not clearly
stated because of editorial cuts. It is puzzling to me that a guy as
bright as Mike would be so unwilling to evaluate his own work a bit
more objectively.

Ed
>I have just read this lettter – and I think it is crap. I am sick to
>death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical
>area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature
>representative ) tropical series
. He is just as capable of
>regressing these data again any other "target" series , such as the
>increasing trend of self-opinionated verbage he has produced over
>the last few years , and ... (better say no more)
>Keith

Redigeret d. 20-11-2009 11:27
20-11-2009 12:41
Morten Riber
★★★★☆
(1667)
Det er vel på sin plads at konkluderer ovenpå sådan et massivt materiale der er kommet os i hænde oveni alt det vi allerede vidste at der fordrejes og forfalskes MAX for at forsvare den menneskeskabte globale opvarmning.

Endvidere er det vel også nærlæggede at konstaterer at teorien står ekstremt svagt og at den selvbevidste tilhænger godt selv er klar over det.
20-11-2009 12:58
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4090)
@MortenRiber
du skriver: "teorien står ekstremt svagt og at den selvbevidste tilhænger godt selv er klar over det. "
Det lyer fornuftigt - men alligevel så er sjove, at når man padler igennem de 2000 A4sider mails, at det ofte ser ud som om de tror på CO2-effekten, global warming.

Her er en ISKOLD mail. Fake eller ej, sjov læsning:

From: Tom Wigley
To: Phil Jones
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer

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".

Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol
effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced
ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling
in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.

The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from
MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can
get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal
solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987
(and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s
makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it
currently is not) — but not really enough.

So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?
(SH/NH data also attached.)

This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I'd
appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.

Tom.
20-11-2009 13:29
branner
AdministratorProfilbillede★★★☆☆
(727)
manse42 skrev:
KFL, rick-uk, CBH, branner. hvad med en kommentar? Tavsheden opfatter jeg som skam.

Jeg skriver gerne en kommentar, når der er kastet mere lys over denne underlige sag. Foreløbig synes jeg, det bliver gætterier...
Redigeret d. 20-11-2009 13:36
20-11-2009 13:56
Morten Riber
★★★★☆
(1667)
@Branner

Enhver kan jo til enhver tid påstå ALT, men som Frank skriver så kan ingen set med lidt fornuft jo have opdigtet et så omfattende materiale. Du skriver at et interview ligger på en skeptikers side, men nu er det det jo også ude over hele nettet. Afgørende er så i sidste instans HVOR lå det først osv. Sikkerhed kan nogen vel næppe forvente at få da en sag selv efter en politimæssig efterforskning og efterfølgende retssag stadig kan bringes i tvivl. Altså så længe de pågældende person ikke står offentligt frem og tilstår. Gør han eller de ikke det står vi reelt stadig med en tvist – men altså stadig med en uhyre ekstrem god sag for os skeptikere. At de pågældende alarmister vil forsøge at lyve og benægte ud af situationen kommer ikke bag på nogen jv.fr. De tekster der er kommet ud.

Så hvad skal vi vente for?
20-11-2009 14:26
manse42
★★★☆☆
(633)
@ branner
Jeg skriver gerne en kommentar, når der er kastet mere lys over denne underlige sag. Foreløbig synes jeg, det bliver gætterier...


Hvad gør du da aktivt for at kaste lys over sagen? Hvordan prøver du at få dem i tale? Du står med Danmarks meste aktive klima-site, hvor folk henter oplysninger. Kyotos efterfølger kommer til at foregå i København om ganske kort tid, og du venter på at nogen kaster lys over sagen?

Hvad hvis det ikke er fup. Hvad hvis nogen virkelig har troet på at de har en god sag og har fiflet med data for at gavne deres sag? på den måde har ført DIG bag lyset. Er du virkelig så kold og beregnende at du forventer at en presseansvarlig strikker en meddelelse sammen som som "greenwasher" hele AGW-hypotesen? Som du så kan gå ud med. Så du kan sove godt om natten?

Som du ved har jeg i næsten tre år været med her på klimadebat, og haft den holdning at frem for alt skal sandheden frem, da usandheder vil skade videnskaben, ikke kun på klimaområdet, men overalt. Har været efter CBH af samme årsag.

Kan du virkelig stille dig tilfreds med at blive fodret med en tildækning af problemet?
20-11-2009 14:45
GLARProfilbillede★★★★☆
(1023)
@Manse42

Branner venter til det officielt bliver slået op på IPCC hjemmeside, men der er tale om at CRU er blevet hacked.
20-11-2009 14:47
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4090)
@Branner
Jeg ser af dine skriv at du klart ligger på pro-warming-siden, og trods dette behandler du alle med respekt.
Hatten af for det.

Det er så nemt at behandle ligesindede med respekt, men du formår mere end dette, og det vil komme dig til gode de næste 100 år + moms.
Skulle GW (mod din forventning) falde med et brag går du fra røgen med rank ryg, og en flot indsats. Du slulle blive politiker og du ville få min stemme.

Jeg sidder egentligt ikke og forventer noget specielt fra din side i CRU-sagen.

- Man kan sige GW sagen er faldet på så ufatteligt mange fronter, så én fra eller til...
Det skriger til himlen at de forvrængede grafer rundt omkring ikke kan forsvares, det skriger til himlen at en global warming baseret på mere CO2 - alt imens den kraftigere drivhusgas H2O er på retur - er tåget nonsens.

Så no news, lad debaten rulle. Du sørger for at vi fastholder civilisationen, hører begge sider af en sagen selvom den fra start virkede så indlysende (for nogen). Det er lige præcist forskellen fra en bananrepublik til et godt og trygt samfund.


Undskyld de bevingede ord - mest fordi man oplever så meget dårligt i disse tider, så skal gode kræfter have gode ord med på vejen!

CRU - lækagen vil tids nok komme rigtigt langt ud, den bold kan ikke stoppes, se du bare tiden an Jeppe, Fair nok.
Redigeret d. 20-11-2009 14:49
20-11-2009 15:34
branner
AdministratorProfilbillede★★★☆☆
(727)
Tak, Frank, for de pæne ord!
Der er meget, vi ikke er enige om, men vi er heldigvis enige om, at alle skal kunne komme til orde.

Vil også lige beklage over for MortenRiber, at jeg efterfølgende forkortede mit indlæg, som han svarede på. Det var kun online i syv minutter, men der er nogen, der er hurtige...
Grunden til at jeg kortede det ned til hovedpointen, er netop den, at jeg helst vil være fri for at deltage i den konkrete debat, før jeg ved mere om sagen. Og som Frank skriver, så er det altså ikke noget, der kan holdes tilbage, hvis der er hold i sagen. Der tror jeg, du kan være helt rolig, manse!
20-11-2009 16:55
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4090)
Her ses lidt intern uenighed - naturligt for rigtig forskning. Det er blot denne interne dialog der udadtil "ikke eksisterer":

>>>> On Oct 14, 2009, at 3:01 AM, Tom Wigley wrote:

>>>>> Dear all,

>>>>> At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the

>>>>> recent

>>>>> lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to

>>>>> look at

>>>>> the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic

>>>>> trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second

>>>>> is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the

>>>>> observed data.

>>>>> Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The

>>>>> second

>>>>> method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.

>>>>> These sums complement Kevin's energy work.

>>>>> Kevin says ... "The fact is that we can't account for the lack

>>>>> of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't". I
>>>>> do not agree with this.


>>>>> Tom.

>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++

>>>>> Kevin Trenberth wrote:

>>>>>> Hi all

>>>>>> Well I have my own article on where the heck is global

>>>>>> warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have

>>>>>> broken records the past two days for the coldest days on

>>>>>> record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days

>>>>>> was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the

>>>>>> previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F

>>>>>> and also a record low, well below the previous record low.

>>>>>> This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game

>>>>>> was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below

>>>>>> freezing weather).

>>>>>> Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change

>>>>>> planning: tracking Earth's global energy. /Current Opinion in

>>>>>> Environmental Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27,

>>>>>> doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]

>>>>>> <http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.pdf> (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)

>>>>>> The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at
>>>>>> the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data

>>>>>> published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there

>>>>>> should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.

>>>>>> Our observing system is inadequate.

>>>>>> That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People

>>>>>> like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly

>>>>>> correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the

>>>>>> change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The

>>>>>> PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO

>>>>>> index became positive in September for first time since Sept

>>>>>> 2007. see

>>>>>> http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.ppt

>>>>>> Kevin
20-11-2009 18:27
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4090)
En mail fra Osborn, 1999:

From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>
To: mann@XXXXXXX.edu,imacadam@XXXXXXXXX.uk
Subject: Briffa et al. series for IPCC figure
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 16:18:29 +0100
Cc: k.briffa@XXXXXX,p.jones@XXXXXX

Dear Mike and Ian

Keith has asked me to send you a timeseries for the IPCC multi-proxy
reconstruction figure, to replace the one you currently have. The data are
attached to this e-mail. They go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually
stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that
is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use
. I haven't put a 40-yr
smoothing through them - I thought it best if you were to do this to ensure
the same filter was used for all curves.

The raw data are the same as used in Briffa et al. (1998), the Nature paper
that I think you have the reference for already. They are analysed in a
different way, to retain the low-frequency variations. In this sense, it
is one-step removed from Briffa et al. (1998). It is not two-steps removed
from Briffa et al. (1998), since the new series is simply a *replacement*
for the one that you have been using, rather than being one-step further.

forts...


Den fede skrit refererer til det velkendte "divergence problem, at naturens data fra fproxier ikke bekræfter de voldsomme temperaturstigninger målt primært fra byer (GISS/Hadcrut).

Han nævner altså at man normalt undlader at vise tal efter 1960, dvs op til 1994.
Data følger så nede i mailen, og dem har jeg plottet ind - nedenfor.

Jeg har ikke haft tid til at se om denne serie så reelt er kortet af hvor de er brugt?


Vindmøller er IN!! Vedvarende energi er IN!!!
Men vi må aldrig ofre ærlig og åben videnskab - heller ikke når det gælder klima.
Tilknyttet billede:


Redigeret d. 20-11-2009 18:43
20-11-2009 18:46
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4090)
Yep, se den lyseblå K.Briffa Osborn 1402 - 1960 (ikke 1995):

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rekonstrukcja_Temperatury.PNG
Redigeret d. 20-11-2009 18:46
20-11-2009 18:54
Hvalrossen
★☆☆☆☆
(130)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm Nu har sagen nået BBC
Redigeret d. 20-11-2009 18:59
20-11-2009 20:32
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4090)
Englands TELEGRAPH:

"Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'? "

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
20-11-2009 20:50
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4090)
Efter Yamal/Briffa afsløringerne i sommers diskuterer "klubben" - her Phil Jones fra Hadcrut hvad man skal stille op. Ligger ikke skjul på at Briffa får svært ved at forklare sig:

...

Phil,
It is distressing to read that American Stinker item. But Keith
does seem to have got himself into a mess. As I pointed out in
emails, Yamal is insignificant. And you say that (contrary to
what M&M say) Yamal is *not* used in MBH, etc. So these facts
alone are enough to shoot down M&M is a few sentences (which
surely is the only way to go — complex and wordy responses
will be counter productive).
But, more generally, (even if it *is* irrelevant) how does Keith
explain the McIntyre plot that compares Yamal-12 with Yamal-all? And
how does he explain the apparent "selection" of the less well-replicated
chronology rather that the later (better replicated) chronology?
Of course, I don't know how often Yamal-12 has really been used in
recent, post-1995, work. I suspect from what you say it is much less
often that M&M say — but where did they get their information? I
presume they went thru papers to see if Yamal was cited, a pretty foolproof method if
you ask me. Perhaps these things can be explained clearly and concisely — but I am not
sure Keith is able to do this
as he is too close to the issue and probably quite pissed of.
And the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that
affects both you and Keith (and Mann). Yes, there are reasons — but
many *good* scientists appear to be unsympathetic to these
. The
trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something,
and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is
being hidden.
I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this.
I'd be willing to check over anything he puts together.
Tom.

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit ...

Redigeret d. 20-11-2009 20:51
20-11-2009 21:22
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4090)
Her virker Phil Jones i 2005 som om at MBH-Bristlecones er points til Alarmist fløjen. "MM" er Michal Mann herunder.

From: Phil Jones
To: Tim Osborn , "Tett, Simon"
Subject: Re: Bristlecones!
Date: Fri Jul 29 16:30:35 2005
Cc: Keith Briffa

Simon,

If you go to this web page [1]http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/ammann.shtml

You can click on a re-evaluation of MBH, which leads to a paper submitted to Climatic Change. This shows that MBH can be reproduced. The R-code to do this can be accessed and eventually the data – once the paper has been accepted.

IPCC will likely conclude that all MM arguments are wrong and have been answered in papers that have either come out or will soon. MBH is just one curve of many – more now than there were in 2001. MBH is still in the spaghetti of curves, and is not an outlier. If there are outliers it will be Esper et al. and another one.

Bristlecones are only crucial to the issue if you are MM. They misused them, by their PCA application. This is all well-known to those in the know.

I have reviewed the CC paper by Wahl and Ammann. It reproduces all the mistakes MM have made, so they know how and why their results have been achieved. I can send you the paper if you want, subject to the usual rules.

MBH have all responded to the same requests as IPCC got from the US Senate. Their responses are all posted at [2]http://www.realclimate.org/

The skeptics have shot themselves in the foot over this one.

Cheers
Phil


Og jeg bemærker, skrevet i 2005:
"MBH is just one curve of many – more now than there were in 2001"
Ja, MBH stod mere alene med sit "No MWP" billede da den blev introduceret af IPCC i 2001. Men non the less præsenterede IPCC denne som "sandheden" på det grundlag der var i 2001. Men IPCC er helt uvildig.
Redigeret d. 20-11-2009 21:23
20-11-2009 21:42
rick_uk
★★★★☆
(1140)
KFL, rick-uk, CBH, branner. hvad med en kommentar? Tavsheden opfatter jeg som skam.

Min ståsted med sådanne 'sensationalistiske' afsløringer der kommer "the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'" (vi har set det så mange gange før!) er....

Klap hesten!
(Ja, så er jeg en lyseslukker
)

Der er mange mulige aspekter i denne sag, men lige nu er det meget spændende.

Bl.a.:

Mr Cluley, senior technology consultant for Sophos: There are passionate opinions on both sides of the climate debate and there will be people trying to knock down the other side. If they feel that they can gather inside information on what the other side is up to, then they may feel that is ammunition for their counterargument.

Kilde BBC ovenfor (tak Hvalrossen
)

Der er kommet et indlæg på RealClimate som jeg har ikke nået at læse endnu (er i ikke privilegeret?) Findes her:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

Vi må se om afsløringerne kan standse afsmeltningen af indlansisen på Grønland
:

Greenland Ice Cap Melting Faster Than Ever (13/11-09)

Greenland ice sheet is losing mass at an accelerating rate, reports a new study in 'Science'.


Eller? :

Ancient high-altitude trees grow faster as temperatures rise (16/11-09)

[Bristlecone] Pines close to treeline have wider annual growth rings for the period from 1951 to 2000 than for the previous 3,700 years


De er spændende tider vi lever i



Vh rick

Vi har hørt varslerne. Klokken tikker....Informerede valg.
20-11-2009 22:03
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4090)
Og her J. Sallinger fra New Zealand, han mener at sceptikernes materiale skal stoppes fra at komme i større videnskabelige skrifter også selvom det er peer reviewed. "CR" er det videnskabelige skrift Climate Research der ikke har lukket af for indspark fra skeptiker siden ud over alarmist siden.

From: j.salinger@niwa.co.nz
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@XXXXX>, Phil Jones <p.jones@XXXX>, Mike Hulme <m.hulme@XXXXX.uk>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@XXXXX.uk>, James Hansen <jhansen@XXXXXXX.gov>, Ben Santer <santer1@XXXXXX>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@XXXXXX>, Tom Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@XXXXX>, Steve Schneider <shs@XXXXXXX .... ... .. ...
Subject: And again from the south!
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 20:28:20 +1200

Dear friends and colleagues

This will be the last from me for the moment and I believe we are all
arriving at a consensus voiced by Tom, Barrie, Neville et al., from
excellent discussions.

Firstly both Danny and Tom have complained to de Freitas about
his editorial decision, which does not uphold the principles of good
science. Tom has shared the response. I would be curious to find
out who the other four cited are - but a rebuttal would be excellent.

Ignoring bad science eventually reinforces the apparent 'truth' of
that bad science in the public mind, if it is not corrected. As
importantly, the 'bad science' published by CR is used by the
sceptics' lobbies to 'prove' that there is no need for concern over
climate change. Since the IPCC makes it quite clear that there are
substantial grounds for concern about climate change, is it not
partially the responsibility of climate science to make sure only
satisfactorily peer-reviewed science appears in scientific
publications? - and to refute any inadequately reviewed and wrong
articles that do make their way through the peer review process?


I can understand the weariness which the ongoing sceptics'
onslaught would induce in anyone, scientist or not. But that's no
excuse for ignoring bad science. It won't go away, and the more
we ignore it the more traction it will gain in the minds of the general
public, and the UNFCCC negotiators. If science doesn't uphold the
purity of science, who will?

We Australasians (including Tom as an ex pat) have suggested
some courses of action. Over to you now in the north to assess
the success of your initiatives, the various discussions and
suggestions and arrive on a path ahead. I am happy to be part of it.

Warm wishes to all

Jim
20-11-2009 22:13
rick_uk
★★★★☆
(1140)
Fra hacket e-mail ovenfor:

I can understand the weariness which the ongoing sceptics'
onslaught would induce in anyone, scientist or not. But that's no
excuse for ignoring bad science.
It won't go away, and the more we ignore it the more traction it will gain in the minds of the general public, and the UNFCCC negotiators.



Vh rick

Vi har hørt varslerne. Klokken tikker....Informerede valg.
20-11-2009 22:36
rick_uk
★★★★☆
(1140)
Har nu læst RealClimates post (linket ovenfor). Som forventet: 'en storm i et glas vand':

More interesting is what is NOT contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to 'get rid of the MWP', no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no 'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords.

The timing of this particular episode is probably not coincidental. But if cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal emails is the only response to the weight of the scientific evidence for the human influence on climate change, then there probably isn't much to it.



Vh rick

Vi har hørt varslerne. Klokken tikker....Informerede valg.
20-11-2009 22:50
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4090)
@Rick - ja, de taler deres sag her og der, og det øger troværdigheden af ægtheden af disse mails.

Apropos ægtheden, en blogger på watts:

Stan Kjar (21:28:44) :

Some of the emails are without-a-question legitimate. I saw an email from I guy I know and he verified it was a real email he received from Tom Wigley. Steve M verified emails from him to these guys were real.

There may be some fakes, but the vast majority are surely real.



Dertil kommer, at langt den største del af materialet IKKE er mails, men data data og atter data. Det kommer til at tage mange måneder før dette materiale er endevendt!


Vindmøller er IN!! Vedvarende energi er IN!!!
Men vi må aldrig ofre ærlig og åben videnskab - heller ikke når det gælder klima.
20-11-2009 23:31
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4090)
From: Phil J*nes
To: Gil C*mpo
Subject: Re: Twentieth Century Reanalysis preliminary version 2 data – One other thing!
Date: Tue Nov 10 12:40:26 2009

Gil,
One other good plot to do is this. Plot land minus ocean. as a time series.
This should stay relatively close until the 1970s. Then the land should start moving away
from the ocean

....

One final thing – don't worry too much about the 1940-60 period, as I think we'll be
changing the SSTs there for 1945-60 and with more digitized data for 1940-45. There is also
a tendency for the last 10 years (1996-2005) to drift slightly low – all 3 lines. This may
be down to SST issues.
Once again thanks for these! Hoping you'll send me a Christmas Present of the draft!
Cheers
Phil
20-11-2009 23:59
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4090)
Her om den famøse trægraf der simpelthen var vendt på hovedet og derefter viste global warming:

From Nick McKay
The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference – the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don't remember. Darrell, does this sound right to you?


OG sandheden??

Michael Mann

Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page--Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa '06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.






Og her Phil Jones der opfordrer til at datoer forfalskes:

Gene/Caspar, Good to see these two out. Wahl/Ammann doesn't appear to be in CC's online first, but comes up if you search. You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it hasn't changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006! Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today. Ammann/Wahl - try and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with.


Mick Kelly - foreslår at tage de sidste data punkter ud idet de viser afkøling:

Yeah, it wasn't so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a longer – 10 year – period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you might expect from La Nina etc. Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also. Anyway, I'll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that's trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.

Redigeret d. 21-11-2009 00:12
21-11-2009 01:39
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4090)
Australsk avis:

http://www.investigatemagazine.com/australia/latestissue.pdf

Tjah. Svært at vide hvad der kommer ud af alt dette, men en effekt er, ar Steve McIntyrs m.fl har fået en masse oplysninger der kun kan stille dem bedre fremover.

En af de klareste ting der fremgår af mails - hvilket nok ikke kan afvises - er, at Jones og flere andre systematisk beskriver hvordan de undgår at udlevere data. Og det er mod Britisk lovgivning "FOI".
Redigeret d. 21-11-2009 02:02
21-11-2009 01:54
Søren_Søndergaard
★★☆☆☆
(203)
@rick_uk
Hvordan har du det med disse emails?

Trods min almindelige holdning til tingene, synes det er så slemt at jeg får decideret ondt i maven.
Jeg frygter faktisk at disse guruers maskespil i den grad slår alting i den modsatte retning så selv de helt fornuftige progressive tiltag ikke bliver til noget.

Skræmmende at vi så sent som igår talte om hvem man skal stole på i den grad aktualiseres


Får du også ondt i maven?
Redigeret d. 21-11-2009 01:55
21-11-2009 02:07
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4090)
En sjov lille én om de velkendte errorbars, der får alt fra IPCC´s hånd til at se sååå gennemtænkt ud:

[From 1123163394.txt]

.....has an invited talk in my session. I invited him, because he was working w/ Stott et al, and so I assume he was legit, and not associated with the contrarians. But if he's associated w/ the Dutch group, he may actually be a problem. Do you have additional information about him and what he has been up to?

....

There is an issue coming up in IPCC. Every curve needs error bars, and having them is all that matters. It seems irrelevant whether they are right or how they are used.
21-11-2009 02:34
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4090)
txt 12555553040 Wigley skriver til Micheal Mann:
>> On Oct 14, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Tom Wigley wrote:
>>> Mike,
>>>
>>> The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical
>>> runs with PCM look as though they match observations -- but the
>>> match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low
>>> climate sensitivity -- compensating errors. In my (perhaps too
>>> harsh)
>>> view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model
>>> results by individual authors and by IPCC
. This is why I still use
>>> results from MAGICC to compare with observed temperatures. At least
>>> here I can assess how sensitive matches are to sensitivity and
>>> forcing assumptions/uncertainties.
>>>
>>> Tom.

Redigeret d. 21-11-2009 02:35
21-11-2009 10:59
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4090)
Næste eksempel: Michael Mann ærgrer sig voldsomt over at det ikke er alle videnskabelige skrifter der lockouter skeptiske synspunkter. Således foreslår han, at bladet "Climate Research" der puplicerer på begge sider af debaten skal fryses ud:


.....
My
guess is that Von Storch is actually with them (frankly, he's an odd individual, and I'm
not sure he isn't himself somewhat of a skeptic himself), and without Von Storch on their
side, they would have a very forceful personality promoting their new vision.
There have been several papers by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon & Baliunas paper, that
couldn't get published in a reputable journal.
This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the
"peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal!
So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a
legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate
research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also
need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently
sit on the editorial board...

What do others think?
mike
At 08:49 AM 3/11/2003 +0000, Phil Jones wrote:


Og her om den Finske graf der blev vendt på hovedet:
Regarding the "upside down man", as Nick's plot shows, when flipped, the Korttajarvi
series has little impact on the overall reconstructions. Also, the series was not
included in the calibration. Nonetheless, it's unfortunate that I flipped the
Korttajarvi data
.
...
The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said.
I took a look at the original reference - the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray
density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had
higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong,
unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don't remember.

Redigeret d. 21-11-2009 11:43
21-11-2009 12:12
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4090)
Saiers der blev fyret fra GRL (Geo... Research.. Letters tror jeg det videnskabelige skrift hedder) bliver her debateret. Saiers havde gjort det forbudte at også puplisere resultater der ikke støtter op om Global warming idéen. Dialog med GRL editor samt "intern" dialog mellem Mann og de andre i hvad vi vist må kalde "the worlds leading 25 scientists...".

Mann foreslår at Saiers fyres. Som det efterfølgende skete:

>>>This is truly awful. GRL has gone downhill rapidly in recent years.
>> > I
>> >
>> > think the decline began before Saiers. I have had some unhelpful
>> >
>> > dealings with him recently with regard to a paper Sarah and I have
>> >
>> > on glaciers -- it was well received by the referees, and so is in
>> > the
>> >
>> > publication pipeline. However, I got the impression that Saiers was
>> >
>> > trying to keep it from being published.
>> >
>> >
>> > Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that
>> > Saiers
>> >
>> > is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find
>> > documentary
>> >
>> > evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get
>> >
>> > him ousted. Even this would be difficult.
>> >
>> >


Dette er fra tekst 1106322460 til de interesserede.

Må nu nok sige, at jo mere man graver, desto mere hælder jeg til at dette materiale er og bliver en belastning for disse ca 25 "leading scientists".
Nu med dette eksempel er Lindzens bog (om systematisk lockout af resultater der ikke støtter global warming idéen) bekræftet. Der er så meget information så det er svært at sige hvad det her kan få af konsekvenser.
Redigeret d. 21-11-2009 12:13
21-11-2009 12:31
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4090)
Wow, den her er heller ikke pæn. Det er ret underbygget at der er kommet mere nedbør i Sahel. Men det er jo ikke så grufuldt og dermed på linie med global warming skræk scenarier. Her hvordan Phil Jones omtaler et skriv han skal reviewe hvor netop den stigende nedbør for Sahel omtales.

Klimaks her er, at Jones siger "Han har ikke noget arbejde, og alligevel skriver han om mere regn i Sahel". Med andre ord: Det er ikke godt for ens arbejdssituation hvis man har resultater der ikke spiller med global warming:

> On something completely different - just agreed to review another
> crappy
> paper by Chappell/Agnew on Sahel Rainfall. Chappell is out of a job -
> and still
> he tries to write papers saying the Sahel drought might not have
> happened!
>
> Both are just time wasters - but necessary to do unfortunately.
>
> Weekend away with the family now - back Monday!
>
> Cheers
> Phil


Holdk.. en nedladende karl smart, Phil Jones (leder af Hadcrut CRU), bare min mening.
text 1188557698
Redigeret d. 21-11-2009 12:32
21-11-2009 13:11
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4090)
Her en lille "sød" tilkendegivelse af Manns indtræden i klubben anno 1999:

From: mann@xxxxxxxxTo: p.jones@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Straight to the Point
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 13:09:36 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxx, mhughes@xxxxxxx rbradley@xxxx, t.osborn@xxxxx

Hi Phil,

SOrry that you have taken such a negative spin from this. I had hoped it was
all resolved pretty amicably, and emphasized to Keith and Tim that I was
being perhaps overly picky this time PRECISELY to avoid the misunderstanding
that happened last time around w/ Science.

Trust that I'm certainly on board w/ you that we're all working towards a common
goal.


Jeg kan udmærket sætte mig ind i denne "Common Goal" følelse, og havde da sikkert selv været med på den værste - hvis man da er helt overbevist om at man skal redde Jorden. Og det er jo det positive, det har vist været hensigten. Bare synd at der kommer sådan et monster ud af det...


Vindmøller er IN!! Vedvarende energi er IN!!!
Men vi må aldrig ofre ærlig og åben videnskab - heller ikke når det gælder klima.
Redigeret d. 21-11-2009 13:27
21-11-2009 15:00
Hvalrossen
★☆☆☆☆
(130)
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html - En ikke udtømmende liste over indholdet af forskellige mails

bl.a. "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)", "Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)" m.m.
21-11-2009 15:58
Hvalrossen
★☆☆☆☆
(130)
rick_uk skrev:

......

Vi må se om afsløringerne kan standse afsmeltningen af indlansisen på Grønland
:

Greenland Ice Cap Melting Faster Than Ever (13/11-09)

Greenland ice sheet is losing mass at an accelerating rate, reports a new study in 'Science'.


Det siger vist lidt om noget at man siger at noget accelererer når "bidraget af ferskvand til det stigende havniveau var 25 procent større end blot året efter", når bidraget nu var mindre end forrige år? http://sermitsiaq.gl/klima/article102683.ece

Greenland snowier than we thougt - http://environmentalresearchweb.org/blog/2009/11/greenland-snowier-than-we-thou.html

Og sådan er der jo så meget §.-)
Redigeret d. 21-11-2009 15:59
21-11-2009 17:04
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4090)
Hmm, de ligger åbenbart inde med materiale fra "Earth Goverment.."
Monckton har tordnet mod dette globale-regerings tiltag - netop i forbindelse med Klimadagsordenen. En underlig facet af det hele. Men også ret urealistisk, måske om et par hundrede år?


To all Peoples of the Earth,

Earth has long been waiting for a truly global governing body based on universal values,
human rights, global concepts and democracy. Earth Government might as well be created now,
there is no longer any reason to wait.

....
For the first time in human history, and the first time this millennium, humanity has
proposed a benchmark:

* formation of Earth Government
* formation of global ministries in all important aspects of our lives
* the Scale of Human and Earth Rights as a replacement to the Universal
....
..


txt 1048799107

Tjah tjoh, blot indenfor EU synes jeg at tropperne er noget oppe og toppes selvom vi har meget til fælles. Earth goverment virker egentlig ikke farlig på mig måske alene fordi det er alt for tidligt til at realisere noget sådant.


Vindmøller er IN!! Vedvarende energi er IN!!!
Men vi må aldrig ofre ærlig og åben videnskab - heller ikke når det gælder klima.
21-11-2009 17:55
Hvalrossen
★☆☆☆☆
(130)
Tja, Grønland smelter (om sommeren) - Isen kommer tidligt i år http://sermitsiaq.gl/indland/article103562.ece
21-11-2009 18:32
Frank Lansner
★★★★★
(4090)
Her overvejelser anno 1999 hvor Briffas resultater ikke fjerne MWP, modsat Manns m.fl. Briffa selv gør klart: Han mener at MWP kan matche vore dages varme temperaturer, men Mann gør klart, at hvis Briffas resultater skal med, så skal de justeres og der skal også være en konkret forklaring på hvorfor Briffa historisk har varmere temperaturer:

Mann:
I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith's,
we need to align the first half of the 20th century
w/ the corresponding mean values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline. So if Chris and Tom (?) are ok with this, I would be happy to add Keith's series.

the major discrepancies between Phil's and our series can be explained in terms of spatial sampling/latitudinal emphasis ... But that
explanation certainly can't rectify why Keith's series, which has similar
seasonality *and* latitudinal emphasis to Phil's series, differs in large part in
exactly the opposite direction that Phil's does from ours. This is the
problem we all picked up on (everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this
was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably
concensus viewpoint we'd like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al
series.)

So, if we show Keith's series in this plot, we have to comment that
"something else" is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Perhaps
Keith can help us out a bit by explaining the processing that went into the series
and the potential factors that might lead to it being "warmer" than the Jones
et al and Mann et al series?? We would need to put in a few words in this
regard. Otherwise, the skeptics ... can undermine faith in the paleoestimates.



Briffa:
> For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually
>warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming
>is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth
>was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global
>mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of
>years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence
>for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that
>require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future
>background variability of our climate. I think the Venice meeting will be
>a good place to air these isssues.


TXT 0938018124
Side 1 af 19123>>>





Deltag aktivt i debatten Hackede CRU-mails:

Husk mig

Lignende indhold
DebatterSvarSeneste indlæg
CRU Translate114-02-2010 12:29
Artikler
Tvivlsindustrien og balladen om de hackede e-mails
Indbruddet i CRU
▲ Til toppen
Afstemning
Bør der indføres en klimaafgift på oksekød, som foreslået af Etisk Råd?

Ja

Nej

Ved ikke


Tak for støtten til driften af Klimadebat.dk.
Copyright © 2007-2016 Klimadebat.dk | Kontakt | Privatlivspolitik