Hackede CRU-mails

date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 10:12:03 -0000
from: "Colin Harpham" <xxxxx@uea.ac.uk>
subject: RE: Station data for UKCIP
to: <P.Jones@uea.ac.uk>

Phil,

Perhaps if we asked Ag to make sure Sheffield and Manchester (any others
needed?) were included that would sort SCORCHIO too(?).

I will press on with trying to work out why the temperature needs a 'fudge
factor' along with the poorer modelling for winter.
Sunshine could also do with some attention, have you any suggestions for a
different distribution to try (one that will give 0s and 1s at the
extremes).

I will be working in Loughborough tomorrow (hope that's OK).

Cheers
Colin
"

2) No justification for regional reconstructions rather than what Mann
et al did (I don't think we can say we didn't do Mann et al because
we think it is crap!)

Men ikke noget galt i det

>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
>

Hi Keith,

Of course, I agree with you. We both know the probable flaws in
Mike's 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.

I know I couldn't do this, as when Keith, Tim and me wanted to do some comparisons with MBH98 a few years ago a few of the series could not be made available.

...At 10:03 PM 6/5/2003 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote:Mike, Well put! By chance SB03 [Soon and Baliunas] may have got some of these precip things right, but we don't want to give them any way to claim credit. Also, stationarity is the key. Let me tell you a story. A few years back, my son Eirik did a tree ring science fair project using trees behind NCAR. He found that widths correlated with both temp and precip. However, temp and precip also correlate. There is much other evidence that it is precip that is the driver, and that the temp/width correlation arises via the temp/precip correlation. Interestingly, the temp correlations are much more ephemeral, so the complexities conspire to make this linkage nonstationary. I have not seen any papers in the literature demonstrating this -- but, as you point out Mike, it is a crucial issue. Tom.

That gives a concentration of real CO2 in 2100 that is > 1050 ppm. THAT'S
> 50% higher than projected by IS92a, and even 17 % higher than the worst
> emission case devised in IS92f.
> -the second is tom's. Just use the co2 in IS92a, and assume that all other
> further changes necessary to get the hadley forcing (whatever they are)
> happen in GHG other than CO2.

...
I do not think we should carry out the national assessment by
> using "unrealistic" CO2 numbers. I thought the numbers that come out of our
> exercises (from the impact side of things) were supposed to serve as some
> basis to be used in the process of decision making at the national and
> regional level. Am i out of line here?
...
we have to make clear to whomever will receive
> our results that the climate forcing scenario is on the "high" side of
> things.

From: Dave Schimel <schimel@cgd.ucar.edu>
To: Shrikant Jagtap <sjagtap@agen.ufl.edu>
Subject: RE: CO2
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 09:21:35 -0600 (MDT)

I want to make one thing really clear. We ARE NOT supposed to be working
with the assumption that these scenarios are realistic. They are
scenarios-internally consistent (or so we thought) what-if storylines.You are in fact out of line to assume that these are in some sense
realistic-this is in direct contradiction to the guidance on scenarios
provided by the synthesis team.

If you want to do 'realistic CO2 effects studies, you must do sensitivity
analyses bracketing possible trajectories. We do not and cannot not and
must not prejudge what realistic CO2 trajectories are, as they are
ultimatley a political decision (except in the sense that reserves and
resources provide an upper bound).

'Advice' will be based on a mix of different approaches that must reflect
the fact that we do not have high coinfidence in GHG projections nor full
confidence in climate ystem model projections of consequences.

Dave

Nov 2009:
...
>>> The odd periods are the 1920s and the period from 1940-60. For the
>>> latter if the SSTs were adjusted they would look much better. The
>>> 1900s, 1910s for some reason look amazingly good.
...

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.

date: Fri Sep 24 09:12:10 2004
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Re: ????
to: Tom Wigley <wigley@cgd.ucar.edu>

Tom,
In today, but off tomorrow to IPCC WGI. Here's the 3 figures I put together. The first
is
Nuuk (Godthaab), the 2cnd is a mix of stations near Jakobshavn/Upernavik and the 3rd
is further south near Ivigtut. I can't cope with the Inuit names. None of these are
written up yet. You can have a look for yourself.
It seems to have cooled by roughly what they say, but this is only one location. Most
places in Greenland do show some cooling.
Most places in the Arctic show little warming in summer as temperatures are constrained to be near zero, when there is snow and ice
around,
Cheers
Phil

> I'd thought I'd also welcome you to the Hockey Team (but
> you're all
> reserves) - to get onto the ice, you have to do some paleo work!
> Wei-Chung therefore has a good chance of playing some day.
>
> It's also good that we're all still working hard in the field,
> most of us
> writing less unfortunately as we're higher up the ladder!

You guys laver godt nok noget andet, men jeg stoler på jer, kom over og lav noget paleo work ?

3) why include chesapeake, which is likely a salinity record?

[Godt spørgsmål!!! Til dette siger Briffa]

Because Moberg used it in their latest reconstruction - I agree that I would not use it
because of the dubious temperature signal (salinity effect and no local replication) and
poor dating control (and I do not like the way the Moberg method effectively over weights
the low-frequency predictor series in their analysis).

More striking to me, the recent updates show that the tree rings are no longer tracking the
instrumental record. "An apparent decrease in temperature sensitiviy for many northern
sites... is evident in our reconstructions, with divergence from instrumental temperatures
after ~1986...

the divergence between the tree-ring and instrumental data results in
weakening of calibration results and failed verification statistics"....
Regardless of the origin of this "divergence problem" of the tree-ring records diverging
from the instrumental record over the most recent, large warming, the questions from the
committee suggested to me that the members were highly focused on the divergence.
(Roseanne

seemed to downplay it as something that requires further study and could have many origins
but is

not highly damaging to the broader picture, but I believe based on their questions that at
least some committee members were not convinced.)

Between her overall assessment and the
divergence problem, I doubt that the NRC panel can now return any strong endorsement of the hockey stick, or of any other reconstruction of the last millennium.

Although the reconstructions have been labeled as "multi-parameter", they have primarily been tree-ring based.

..at present the issue is still being defined
and explored. As the issue needs more work, this is only an opinion, and until there is
peer-reviewed and published evidence as to the degree of methodological uncertainty , it is not appropriate to criticize this or other work .

...the divergence problem are not well defined, sufficiently studied, or quantified to be
worthy of too much concern at this point.

"..It is
an interesting scientific problem for sure, but as Keith has indicated, it probably contributes relatively little to the NH temperature reconstructions made to date. But instead of enlightenment, we get obfuscation..."

"
So this whole mess looks like it could be a grossly unfair debacle for tree rings if the NRC panel mistakenly goes down the divergence path as the most important issue. That it is surely not!
"

My
nomination for a CC visitor in the future is Keith Briffa from the
Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia. He is doing some
very interesting work with multi-millennial tree-ring records
covering much of the Holocene and is working on understanding the
cause(s) of a very large-scale change in the response of trees to
climate (e.g. over most of Siberia) that has resulted in an anomalous
divergence between temperature and tree rings since ca. 1950.

The penultimate sentence refers to a recent paper (Jones et al., 2008). This looks at urbanization issues across China. This paper shows that urban-related warming is about 0.1 deg C/decade (for the period 1951-2004).

Accounting for this, the remaining warming is 0.81 deg C over the period from 1951-2004.

Combining these two bits of information means that 60% of the warming is not due to urban effects.

This result is just for China, and cannot be applied elsewhere in the world.

I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don't have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter.

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

>From: Phil Jones [mailto:xxxs@uea.ac.uk]
>Sent: 05 January 2009 16:18
>To: Johns, Tim; Folland, Chris
>Cc: Smith, Doug; Johns, Tim
>Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009
>
>
> Tim, Chris,
> I hope you're not right about the lack of warming lasting
> till about 2020. I'd rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office
> press release with Doug's paper that said something like -
> half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on
> record, 1998!

date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:47:36 -0400
from: Thomas C Peterson <Thomas.C.Peterson@noaa.gov>
subject: UHI - avoiding urban stations
to: Phil Jones <xxxx@uea.ac.uk>

Hi, Phil,

I'm reviewing a UHI review paper by David Parker wherein he says that
you and I avoid using urban stations and Hansen adjusts urban stations.
NCDC doesn't actually avoid using urban stations. But I'm assuming
David is accurate about your data set. That is that you have stations
from urban locations that you don't include in HadCRU. Is that
accurate? Thanks.

Regards,
Tom

he [Bradley] and other members of the
MBH camp have a fundamental dislike for the very concept of the MWP, so I tend to view
their evaluations as starting out from a somewhat biased perspective, i.e. the cup is
not only "half-empty"; it is demonstrably "broken". I come more from the "cup half-full"
camp when it comes to the MWP, maybe yes, maybe no, but it is too early to say what it
is. Being a natural skeptic, I guess you might lean more towards the MBH camp, which is
fine as long as one is honest and open about evaluating the evidence (I have my doubts
about the MBH camp).
...
I just don't want to get into an open critique
of the Esper data because it would just add fuel to the MBH attack squad. They tend to
work in their own somewhat agenda-filled ways. We should also work on this stuff on our
own, but I do not think that we have an agenda per se, other than trying to objectively
understand what is going on.

"
There are people in this field
whose motives or at least methods I have always regarded with suspicion. You two,
however, are motivated only by genuine scientific goals. "

Review of "1000 years of rainfall variability in the Sahel: an evaluation of a long-term
climate model simulation against observational data", by N. Brooks and M. Hulme.

has several shortcomings that make it
unacceptable for publication. These are 1) inadequacy of the model for studying the
Sahel, 2) poor validation of the model, and 3) arbitrary and unjustified statistical
analyses. I am also uncomfortable with their interpretation of results.

There is a tendency to cite "soft
science" literature in places where more technical literature is appropriate.

The model results are extensively "massaged", using what appear to be arbitrarily
chosen filters of 9 years, 25 years, 45 years, 96 years and 101 years. This is compared
with unfiltered observational data.

As a result of all of this statistical manipulation, it is difficult to follow what
the authors do.

At 08:15 AM 8/13/2003 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote:

Might be interesting to see how frequently Soon and Baliunas, individually, are cited
(as astronomers). Are they any good in their own fields?
Perhaps we could start referring to them as astrologers (excusable as ... 'oops, just a
typo')
Tom.

"In our GRL article, Phil and I weighted the records we used with respect to their decadal
correlations with the instrumental gridpoint surface temperature data for the same region
(numbers in parentheses in attached figure 1 from the paper), so if a series is truly crap
in an objectively determined sense, it got very low weight. "

"
Dear Dr. Mann,
...
-How would you respond to the critique that, as a key part of the review processes of
publications in the field of climate science, as something of a "gatekeeper," you have
rejected and otherwise sought to suppress work that contradicted your work. Is this fair?
"

"
I won't dignify that question with a response, other than to say that it betrays a deep
naivety about how the peer review process in science works, and it buys into what I
consider to be rather offensive conspiracy theories that impugn the integrity of editors,
reviewers in general, and myself in particular.
"

At 02:24 09/12/2004, you wrote:
...
I think he has behaved irresponsibly and ought to be fired by NOAA for not have an open enough mind to even consider that climate change might be affecting hurricanes. I am quickly becoming outraged by this and I hope it backfires on
him!!!!
Kevin

date: Thu Dec 9 08:28:11 2004
from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Correspondence with Chris Landsea

Kevin,
So you've heard. The other email may explain more and/or give details.
We will have to do without him. We still need to get a diagram, but we should probably let this die down now...
Cheers
Phil

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized.

...

It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth's role as the IPCC's Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity.

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.

Dear Ed and Mike and others,
All of our attempts, so far, to estimate hemisphere-scale
temperatures for the period around 1000 years ago are
based on far fewer data than any of us would like.

None of the datasets used so far has anything like the
geographical distribution that experience with recent
centuries indicates we need, and no-one has yet found a
convincing way of validating the lower-frequency
components of them against independent data. As Ed [Cook]
wrote, in the tree-ring records that form the backbone of
most of the published estimates, the problem of poor
replication near the beginnings of records is particularly
acute, and ubiquitous. I would suggest that this problem
probably cuts in closer to 1600 than 1400 in the several
published series. Therefore, I accept that everything we
are doing is preliminary, and should be treated with
considerable caution.

Question:
"Could an increase in carbon [CO2] in the atmosphere therefore give the same result as
an increase in temperature? How can one distinguish the two? and what would
this mean for our understanding of proxy based climate change?"

Briffa:
"We can not give a definitive answer as of yet , but the general idea is to attempt to
separate them using statistical techniques . The short answer is that we should not rule
out the possibility that the apparent increase in 20thcentury tree growth around the world
, might be partly due to higher CO2 levels.
"

Thanks. I think I will say: "Anecdotal evidence, for example the growing of grapes in the medieval period, has been used to imply that current
warm temperatures in England have not been influenced by human
activities. However, the popularity of grape growing is related to many
other factors apart from temperature, and the longest temperature record in existence (that for the Low Countries (van Engelen, refernce??))
indicates a medieval warm period that was cooler than current
temperatures". OK?

I am not very convinced by it myself, but it's the best I can think of.

"
We will then
use the MXD to estimate temperatures back to 1600 (not sure that their method
will work before 1600 due to too few data, which prevents the iterative method
from converging), and I will then compare with our simpler maps of summer
temperature. Mike wants winter (Oct-Mar) and annual reconstructions to be
tried too. Also, we set all post-1960 values to missing in the MXD data set
(due to decline), and the method will infill these, estimating them from the
real temperatures - another way of "correcting" for the decline, though may be
not defensible!"

3373.txt: Raymond Bradley: " Furthermore, the model output is very much determined by the time series of forcing that is selected, and the model sensitivity which essentially scales the range. Mike only likes these because they seem to match his idea of what went on in the last millennium, whereas he would savage them if they did not. Also–& 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". " This refers to a 2003 paper "Global surface temperatures over the past two millennia" by Mann and Jones, that shows 'hockey stick' temperature graphs and was used by the IPCC in its 2007 report.

0435.txt: Ed Cook, on the same Mann & Jones paper: " I am afraid the Mike and Phil are too personally invested in things now (i.e. the 2003 GRL paper that is probably the worst paper Phil has ever been involved in – Bradley hates it as well), "

1527.txt: Dendrochronologist Rob Wilson writes: " There has been criticism by Macintyre of Mann's sole reliance on RE, and I am now starting to believe the accusations. "

4241.txt: Rob Wilson again: " The whole Macintyre issue got me thinking...I first generated 1000 random time-series in Excel ... The reconstructions clearly show a 'hockey-stick' trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about. "

4369.txt: Tim Osborn says " This completely removes most of Mike's arguments... " and Ed Cook replies "I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead."

4758.txt: Tim Osborn: " 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! "

2346.txt: Osborn: " Also, we set all post-1960 values to missing in the MXD data set (due to decline), and the method will infill these, estimating them from the real temperatures – another way of "correcting" for the decline, though may be
not defensible! "

2009.txt: Keith Briffa: " I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here! "

3994.txt: John Mitchell (Met Office) commenting on draft IPCC report: " Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems to me that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no. "

1104.txt: Heinz Wanner: " I was a reviewer of the IPCC-TAR report 2001. In my review which I can not find again in its
precise wording I critcized the fact that the whole Mann hockeytick is being printed in its full length in the IPCC-TAR report. In 1999 I made the following comments:
1. The spatial, temporal (tree-ring data in the midlatitudes mainly contain "summer information") and spectral coverage and behaviour of the data is questionable, mainly before 1500-1600 AD.
2. It is in my opinion not appropriate already to make statements for the southern hemisphere and for the period prior to 1500 AD.
My review was classified "unsignificant" "

0497.txt: Jones to Mann in 1999: " Keith didn't mention in his Science piece but both of us think that you're on very dodgy ground with this long-term decline in temperatures on the 1000 year timescale. What the real world has done over the last 6000 years and what it ought to have done given our understandding of Milankovic forcing are two very different things. "

0562.txt: Simon Tett (Met Office), discussing revising a paper: " No justification for regional reconstructions rather than what Mann et al did (I don't think we can say we didn't do Mann et al because we think it is crap!) ".

2383.txt: Tim Barnett in 2004: " maybe someone(s) ought to have another look at Mann's paper. His statistics were suspect as i remember... "

1656.txt: Douglas Maraun (UEA): " I think, that "our" reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann's work were not especially honest. "

4005.txt: Osborn: " Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were "

4133.txt: David Rind (NASA GISS): " what Mike Mann continually fails to understand, and no amount of references will solve, is that there is practically no reliable tropical data for most of the time period, and without knowing the tropical sensitivity, we have no way of knowing how cold (or warm) the globe actually got. "

1738.txt: Tree expert Rod Savidge writes: " 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. "

3219.txt: Savidge again: " As a tree physiologist who has devoted his career to understanding how trees make wood, I have made sufficient observations on tree rings and cambial growth to know that dendrochronology is not at all an exact science. Indeed, its activities include subjective interpretations of what does and what does not constitute an annual ring, statistical manipulation of data to fulfill subjective expectations, and discarding of perfectly good data sets when they contradict other data sets that have already been accepted. "

The following sequence of emails relate to a paper 'The Team' are preparing to respond to a paper by Soon & Baliunas (2003). They know that much of the material in their own paper is wrong. See here for more detail.

0682.txt: " By chance SB03 may have got some of these precip things right, but we don't want to give them any way to claim credit. " " There is much other evidence that it is precip that is the driver ".
0285.txt: " We also don't show it after 1940. I agree this has to be made very clear in the caption ". This data deletion never was made clear in the caption, leading to a repetition of the notorious "hide the decline" trick.
4207.txt: " You commented that the Chinese series of Yang et al (GRL 2002) looked weird. Well, that's because it's crap–no further comment on what stuff gets into GRL! You appear to have used their so-called "complete" China record. You really should consider what went into this –2 ice core delta 18O records of dubious relationship to temperature ... You just shouldn't grab anything that's in print and just use it 'cos it's there—that just perpetuates rubbish. This series needs to be removed from Figure 2 in the EOS forum piece " (the suspect paper was not removed).
5027.txt: " I find it somewhat ironic that it should be replaced with the latest (Mann and Jones) series that contains the same three series plus a mixture of other far more dubious (not to say bad ) series "
2023.txt: " I also believe some of the series that make up the Chinese record are dubious or obscure , but the same is true of other records Mann and Jones have used ... There are problems (and limitations ) with ALL series used. "
4712.txt: " I suggest adding the following to the end of the Figure 2 caption: "..... Note that individual series are weighted according to their quality in forming a composite hemispheric-scale time series." The word 'quality' here has been chosen carefully — as something that is deliberately a bit ambiguous. " (this was not done).
0539.txt: " IT IS A DIFFICULT CALL — WHETHER TO DUMP SERIES THAT HAVE NO SIGNIFICANT LINK TO TEMPERATURE AND WHICH ARE, AS WELL, DUBIOUS ON A PRIORI GROUNDS "

[See also Climategate 1 email 1024334440.txt where Briffa describes Mann's work as 'crap' and Cook agrees.]

På et tidspunkt - når jeg har mere tid - skal jeg nok redegør for de metoder man kan anvende til rekonstruktion af temperaturkurver, nemlig partial least square regession og principal component regression

Der vil altid være en uenighed blandt forskere. Nogle gange er der saglige motiver bag. Andre gange er der blot tale om misundelse, som kommer ud mellem sidebenene.

Mht. Hockey sticken er den blevet bekræftet igen og igen. Jeg tror ikke nogen artikel har skabt så megen disksussion som Michael Mann's oprindelige artikel. Via denne artikel og den tilhørende diskussion har videnskaben udviklet sig.

Michael Mann er en af de helt store forskere inden for temperatur rekonstruktioner. Han har en imponerede publikatiosnliste. Det er OK, at være uenig i hans fundne resultater, men man kan ikke tage fra ham, at han er sædeles kompetent, dygtig og produktiv.

Morten Riber skrev:

Når man lige har siddet og læst alle de lækkede mails, alene dem der er vist på dette forum, er det svært ikke at trække på smilebåndet når man læser om forherligelsen af Michael Mann mv. Nu er det ufint at skrige af grin og slå sig på lårene, så jeg beherskede pænt udbruddet til det omtalte smil.

They have now stated they don't think the removal of the data is in contravention of
section 77 in that the sole purpose of the removal was NOT to deny the requester his
legitimate right of access to the information. I did tell them that that our intention was
stated in our response to Mr. McIntyre; namely to deny him the information on the basis of
EIR Reg. 12(5)(f) & the public interest & this did not alter their position.

This still leaves us with a PR problem but eliminates the legal problem....

kfl skrev:
Hockey stick..

....

På et tidspunkt - når jeg har mere tid - skal jeg nok redegør for de metoder man kan anvende til rekonstruktion af temperaturkurver, nemlig partial least square regession og principal component regression. Desuend skal jeg have fundet R-koden og data på nettet. Det kan godt tage noget tid.