Reply With Quote
Nice try, but the cat is already out of the bag.
Email referenced:
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.
REALITY: "Decline" refers to unreliable tree-ring data, not instrumental temperatures. In a November 26 article, The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania, reported that Penn State scientist Michael Mann -- whose "trick" was referenced in Jones' email -- "said his trick, or 'trick of the trade,' for the Nature chart was to combine data from tree-ring measurements, which record world temperatures from 1,000 years ago until 1960, with actual temperature readings for 1961 through 1998" because "scientists have discovered that, for temperatures since 1960, tree rings have not been a reliable indicator." Jones has also stated that it is "well known" that tree ring data "does not show a realistic trend of temperature after 1960," and the CRU has said that "[t]he 'decline' in this set of tree-ring data should not be taken to mean that there is any problem with the instrumental temperature data." In a November 20 post, RealClimate.org's staff, which is comprised of several working climate scientists, including Mann, similarly stated:
As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"-see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-leaked-emails
In another alleged email, one of the scientists apparently refers to the death of a prominent climate change sceptic by saying "in an odd way this is cheering news".
Ward said that if the emails are correct, they "might highlight behaviour that those individuals might not like to have made public." But he added, "Let's separate out [the climate scientists] reacting badly to the personal attacks [from sceptics] to the idea that their work has been carried out in an inappropriate way."
The revelations did not alter the huge body of evidence from a variety of scientific fields that supports the conclusion that modern climate change is caused largely by human activity, Ward said. The emails refer largely to work on so-called paleoclimate data - reconstructing past climate scenarios using data such as ice cores and tree rings. "Climate change is based on several lines of evidence, not just paleoclimate data," he said. "At the heart of this is basic physics."
CLAIM: Trenberth's "travesty" email exposes private doubts about whether global warming is occurring
Email:
From: Kevin Trenberth <[email protected]>
To: Michael Mann <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider <[email protected]>, Myles Allen <[email protected]>, peter stott <[email protected]>, "Philip D. Jones" <[email protected]>, Benjamin Santer <[email protected]>, Tom Wigley <[email protected]>, Thomas R Karl <[email protected]>, Gavin Schmidt <[email protected]>, James Hansen <[email protected]>, Michael Oppenheimer <[email protected]>
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. [1][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
[2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_c
urrent.ppt
Kevin
REALITY: Trenberth's email referred to "inadequate" system of observing short-term variability, not long-term trend. In the October 12 email, Trenberth cited "my own article on where the heck is global warming" and wrote: "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" [emphasis added].
Trenberth published similar comments in the journal article he cited. Wired's Threat Level blog reported that Trenberth "says bloggers are missing the point he's making in the e-mail by not reading the article cited in it. That article -- An Imperative for Climate Change Planning (.pdf) -- actually says that global warming is continuing, despite random temperature variations that would seem to suggest otherwise." RealClimate.org similarly stated in a November 23 post that "[y]ou need to read his recent paper on quantifying the current changes in the Earth's energy budget to realise why he is concerned about our inability currently to track small year-to-year variations in the radiative fluxes." Indeed, the Trenberth article referred to what he called an "incomplete explanation" of short-term climate variations, and maintained that "global warming is unequivocally happening."
CLAIM: Email reveals Mann tried to obscure Medieval Warm Period
Discussing the reportedly stolen emails on ABC News' This Week, George Will claimed that in an email, Mann "said he wished he could delete, get rid of, the medieval warming period. That lasted 600 years." [ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, 11/29/09]
In his November 24 Human Events article, Delingpole claimed that the "emails reveal a variety of dubious practices, quite contrary to what might reasonably be expected of a world-renowned climate research ins ution lavishly funded by the UK government." One "practice" Delingpole cited included "[a]ttempting to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (ie the period from about 900 to about 1200 when global mean temperatures were considerably warmer than they are now): '......Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back -- I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back....' "
REALITY: Mann said he wanted to identify when MWP began, not "delete, get rid of" it. Mann wrote in the June 4, 2003, email [emphasis added]:
Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back -- I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back.
Nice try, but the cat is already out of the bag.
"the cat is already out of the bag"
as always, facts never have any value for right wingers. All that counts is framing an issue with lies, repeated until the rabble believes the lies.
WMD, Saddam/AQ, Saddam/WTC anyone?
Do you deniers even have hint that you have been conscripted by BigEnergy's Vast Denying Conspiracy?
I think there's probably some traction here, GGA. Undoubtably there is some misinterpretation of the emails at play, but I think there are probably some valid concerns as well. Probably a mix, but if the data is even poisoned a little bit, it's fatal to the analysis.
Oh, and a big o to boutonski. You've almost reduced yourself to a parody.
Last edited by TeyshaBlue; 12-02-2009 at 02:31 PM.
You don't need me to post the myriad of Democrat quotes on Saddam WMD's, do you?
And you can keep going to the church that Al Gore built, but soon, the pews will be empty.
There are already some people claiming that the emails have been edited. There's a lot of money at stake (mostly yours and mine), so I know these cultists won't go away without a fight.
Too bad they're also fighting the data. I don't know how long temps will continue to decline while CO2 continues to rise, but it isn't helping their cause.
As one email put it: “The fact is, we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it’s a travesty that we can’t.”
Here's a nice summary of this mess:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...%20Scandal.pdf
Boutons must get really sad when gas hits $4 and Americans all of a sudden quit caring about the purple beaked water pigeon and run to the ocean with straws to drill themselves.
C'mon GGA, Anthropogenic Global Climate Change has screwed the pooch and you know it. This charade is over, the jig is up, the cat's out of the bag.
All this Climate hoo-hah will go the way of the global cooling hysteria of the seventies. It's just a shame it's cost so freakin' much to bring the conspiracy to light.
Name one unimpeached source that supports spending trillions of dollars of our wealth to insignificantly impact a problem existing by consensus.
“Poor Al Gore: Global warming completely debunked by the very Internet you invented.”
I wonder if the Nobel committe will be visiting ol' Al soon. As i've said before, milli vanili had their trophy taken away for something that wasn't genuine.
People who have consumed the KoolAid look like idiots trying to whitewash this .
I love how this video is led "Paul Krugman Smacks Down George Will's BS Global Warming Claims". LOL -- whatever -- I guess that's in the eye of the beholder.
No kidding...
1998... El Niño
No warming since 2004... The sun has cooled again!
Is that your way of saying you have no intelligent discourse on the matter?
How fitting.
For years we all had to hear so may ing idiots talk about this bull . My 9 year old nephew told me Obama is helping with global warming by changing all the light bulbs in the white house. How ing NOT cute I thought at the time. The brainwashing has begun with that young lad.
No telling how much money people spent on this bull . No telling how many politicians (democrats) were elected because of their take on this bull . No telling how many companies were blasted (lost money because they did not do what these radicals wanted them to do). No telling how much this stupid ass subject screwed us as a nation.
I'm dead serious. Everyone that covered their little ears and went "lalalalalalalala, I can't hear you" when discussing the facts global warming was not happening and you know who you are, you are a ing assclown face idiot.
Those e-mails were not taken out of context. You trolls are officially arguing with yourself or with people who just want to laugh at you.
Did you remind him that President Bush has solar panels installed on the white house? Maybe his activist teachers need to hear that.
True, but I am a fan of the Compact Florescents myself. They don't save me any energy in the winter, because I have electric heat, but in the summer, I use the air conditioner just a little less by lighting with them.
You see, the lost energy that doesn't become light, becomes heat!
Anyway, I replaced all my lights with them about 8 years ago. A couple years ago, Lowes had them on sale for 99 cents each. I though, OK, I'll try some of these ones. So may are bad quality and last a week before winking out. They are fantastic! They are the FEIT Daylight series. Looks so much nicer than the yellow incandescent, and regular cool white fluorescent. I went back and bought 6 boxes! Twelve per box, two boxed of the 60 watt equivalent, two of the 75 watt equivalent, and 2 of the 100 watt equivalent. I gave all my cool white compacts to my next door neighbor.
Love the daylight spectrum compared to incandescent or cool white.
Yes they are. But they are just being good little Koolaid drinking Lemmings.I'm dead serious. Everyone that covered their little ears and went "lalalalalalalala, I can't hear you" when discussing the facts global warming was not happening and you know who you are, you are a ing assclown face idiot.
Funny think is, solar panels still cost more to maintain than they are worth. When I worked at the Multnomah County Electronics shop, our building had the framework for solar panels, but no solar panels. I asked my boss about it. I don't remember the numbers, but it was ridiculous the amount of money they cost to maintain vs. what it just cost to buy electricity or gas. They were removed and sold.
Jimmy Carter has solar cells installed in the 70's as well on the White House. Reagan had them removed for the same reason. Not cost effective. Today with rising energy costs, they are still higher, but not ridiculously higher.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
