Hadley CRU files/emails hacked!

I think the difference here may be the difference between light-colored aerosols and dark-colored since the darker soot-like particles would likey absorb incoming solar radiation instead of reflect it like the light-colored molecules do. So I htink we would require more data that shows concentration levels that seperate light from dark due to their effects in the atmosphere.

That may be the case although the levels of CO2 have gone up dramtically so even if sulfate aerosol conentration levels stayed even or increased slowly we could expect to see a rise in temperatures as CO2 overcomes the negative forcing of aerosols. Again, this is just a hunch since I have not seen a lot of talk about it. I'm going to spend a bit of time looking through Hansen and Mischenko's papers and see if I can find anythjing worthwile. I'll post back if I find something worth your time my friend.

Neither of us claim to be a climatologist and understand this perfectly so I doubt we could ever answer the question with any high level of certainty anyway but I appreciate you making me think.

 

Thanks F8L. I know there gets to be a lot of "chatter" from each side of this issue - so likewise, when you raise a reasonable question like aerosols it does make me think as well. As you say, neither one of us make the claim to be a climatologist so we have to take each others comments in that context and use it as an opportunity to dig further into the issue. I have learned most of what I know about climate change as a result of being challenged by people on "the other side of the issue". So while I do like to argue , I always appreciate a good point on the other side that challenges my understanding.

 

Thanks Tim! I think the conclusions that aerosols are still relatively shall we say frustrating, are supported by the papers I just found if reading the abstracts is any indication. LOL

I just found out that Mischencko has a ton of papers on aerosols. I'll link you to the 2007 paper directly and then to the NASA site where they are all stored.

Past, present, and future of global aerosol climatologies derived​

from satellite observations: A perspective

other papers on the subject from Mishchenko

 

I agree completely. :tea:

 

Great post I just read about this:

It is helpful to know a bit more about CRU. There are only two sources for world-wide historical and current data from ground based thermometers. NASA is one, and CRU is the other.

Great Britain's Climate Research Unit (CRU), takes raw climate information from around the world and then after they make modifications to it they release the modified version ONLY to the scientific community. They completely refuse to share the original climate data or the method they use to modify it.

To have publicly funded scientists refuse to allow open peer review in this manner is simply unheard of. Yet CRU repeatedly ignores Freedom of Information requests for the original data.

This news article detailing their evasions predates the whistle blower leaks people are now discussing:

<quote>
We've lost the numbers: CRU responds to FOIA requests
13th August 2009

The world's source for global temperature record admits it's lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record. The destruction (or loss) of the data comes at a convenient time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia - permitting it to snub FoIA requests to see the data.

The CRU has refused to release the raw weather station data and its processing methods for inspection - except to hand-picked academics - for several years. Instead, it releases a processed version, in gridded form. NASA maintains its own (GISSTEMP), but the CRU Global Climate Dataset, is the most cited surface temperature record by the UN IPCC. So any errors in CRU cascade around the world, and become part of "the science".

Professor Phil Jones, the activist-scientist who maintains the data set, has cited various reasons for refusing to release the raw data. Most famously, Jones told an Australian climate scientist in 2004:

Even if World Meteorological Organization agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

In 2007, in response to Freedom of Information Act requests, CRU initially said it didn't have to fulfil the requests because "Information accessible to applicant via other means Some information is publicly available on external websites".

Now it's citing confidentiality agreements with Denmark, Spain, Bahrain and our own Mystic Met Office. Others may exist, CRU says in a statement, but it might have lost them because it moved offices. Or they were made verbally, and nobody at CRU wrote them down.

As for the raw station data,

"We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data."

Canadian statistician and blogger Steve McIntyre, who has been asking for the data set for years, says he isn't impressed by the excuses. McIntyre obtained raw data when it was accidentally left on an FTP server last month. Since then, CRU has battened down the hatches, and purged its FTP directories lest any more raw data escapes and falls into the wrong hands.

McIntyre says he doesn't expect any significant surprises after analysing the raw data, but believes that reproducibility is a cornerstone of the scientific principle, and so raw data and methods should be disclosed.
<end quote>


So did the leaked emails contain any references to deleting this climate data?

Yes. Yes, they did.

In an e-mail from Phil Jones to Michael Mann (1109021312.txt)

<quote>
Mike,
…
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs (Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick) have been after the CRU station data for years.

*****If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.*****

Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.

We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !

….

Phil
<end quote>

Reproducibility is one of the cornerstones of actual Science. To have a publicly funded lab intentionally delete the data rather than allow open peer review is beyond suspicious.

Deleting information to avoid a Freedom of Information Act request is also quite illegal under UK law.

 

Just a note to anyone who may be "on the fence." If you get out of the Environmental Discussion area of Prius Chat, and look at the entire rest of the internet, you'll find that a *whole lot* of people aren't accepting AGW at all. You know, those who aren't delusionists.

 

I notice the conversation, for some, has shifted to aerosols. As we discover more things we do not know about the earth's climate, wouldn't it be a good time for climate scientists to reconsider the whole field and the direction it had been headed?

While I don't expect scientists whose interests lie in areas other than CO2 and its effect to divert their attention too much, thay should at least recognize that what has recently transpired concerning the CRU and others is a serious breach of the scientific method, ethical conduct and the law.

Governmental bodies wishing to gain control of global energy supplies and usage ahould at least be basing their assault on valid science. How can serious people wish to continue with enterprises such as the upcoming Copenhagen global governance fest? Well, because they are serious about global governance and don't give a sh!t about how they achieve it. It is time for freedom-loving people to wake UP!

Truly serious environmentalists could, for instance, be directing their attention to reducing the real, actual pollution spewed into the atmosphere by the shipping industry where a couple dozen super-sized ships can out pollute all the cars on the globe combined! Why don't we hear about this instead of CO2? Connect the dots.

Here is an area where the U.N. might be doing some good instead of insanely picking on a harmless gas.

http://puregreencars.com/Green-Cars..._pollute_more_than_all_cars_in_the_world.html

 

Climategate: the scandal spreads, the plot thickens, the shame deepens… – Telegraph Blogs

Climategate: the scandal spreads, the plot thickens, the shame deepens…



By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: November 26th, 2009
58 Comments Comment on this article

Wow! The scandal just gets juicier and juicier. Now it seems that the Kiwis may have been at it too – tinkering with raw data to make “Global Warming” look scarier than it really is. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That; Ian Wishart)
The alleged villains this time are the climate scientists at the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NiWA) – New Zealand’s answer to Britain’s Climate Research Unit. And to judge by this news alert by the Climate Science Coalition of NZ, both institutions share a similarly laissez-faire attitude to scientific accuracy.
Compare and contrast these two graphs and you’ll see .

This is the graph from NiWA’s website, showing mean annual temperature over New Zealand from 1853. Note the dotted straight line showing the upward trend. Worrying, isn’t it? Almost enough to make you fall in love your flickery, yellowy new eco-light bulbs, recycle your kids and commit yourself to a binding agreement at Copenhagen.
Now have a look at this analysis of the raw data taken from exactly the same temperature stations.

Can you see the difference?

 

Why 'climategate' won't stop greens | Lorrie Goldstein | Columnists | Comment | Toronto Sun

Two posts ago I posed a question and incredibly, this is the next link I visited - serendipity?

...If you're wondering how the robot-like march of the world's politicians towards Copenhagen can possibly continue in the face of the scientific scandal dubbed "climategate," it's because Big Government, Big Business and Big Green don't give a s*** about "the science."

 

Why would anyone think that Jones and Mann did anything wrong? And why would anyone think mainstream media like the New York Times would have friends only on one side of the debate and curry favor with them? Oh, I don't know. If I were curious, I might read this:

By James Taranto, Wall Street Journal
The massive University of East Anglia global-warmist archives are now searchable at this site, and one particular email demonstrates the nexus between the scientific shenanigans and the popular press, on which most people rely for their information on global warming. This email, dated Sept. 29, 2009, is from Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University to New York Times warm correspondent Andrew Revkin. The crucial exchange begins with this question from Revkin (quoting verbatim):
I’m going to blog on this as it relates to the value of the peer review process and not on the merits of the mcintyre et al attacks. Peer review, for all its imperfections, is where the herky-jerky process of knowledge building happens, would you agree?
And here is Mann’s response:
“Re, your point at the end--you’ve taken the words out of my mouth. Skepticism is essential for the functioning of science. It yields an erratic path towards eventual truth. But legitimate scientific skepticism is exercised through formal scientific circles, in particular the peer review process. A necessary though not in general sufficient condition for taking a scientific criticism seriously is that it has passed through the legitimate scientific peer review process. those such as McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted.”
In principle, Revkin and Mann are quite right. But as we noted Monday, one of the most damning findings in the archives concerns the corruption of the peer-review process.
In one email, under the subject line “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL,” Phil Jones of East Anglia writes to Mann: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow--even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
In another, Mann--discussing a journal that has published a paper by skeptical scientists, puts forward a plan for such a redefinition:
“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...”
The scare quotes around “peer-reviewed literature” are Mann’s. And it hardly needs to be said that peer review is a sham if papers that present alternative hypotheses are not even allowed into the process.

 

The delusionists have been alarmingly quiet lately.

 

I think people are simply growing weary of your crap. Rational skepticism and debate is encouraged but all you have accomplished is warmongering and blatantly ignoring any scientific explanations for the few basic questions you had. This will be my last response to you until you come up with something worth answering.

 

Wow such anger!

I've just noticed the delusionists lack of comments about the lies and fake data coming out of the CRU, and also out of New Zealand and now Australia. You know, the lies about warming trends, "doctored" data about temperatures. It's nothing too big, just enough lies to wholly and completely discredit the idea of AGW. I guess if you AGW people just ignore the real data, like always, it's easy to keep thinking that you're "right."

Wake up. The show is over. The greatest hoax ever perpetrated upon man has been revealed.

P.S. I haven't seen any scientific explanations from you guys. Basically your last post said "Oh, well, we don't have a clue, but it may be aerosols now. Let's point our fingers at that because we are totally screwed otherwise."

 

That's why I put them on ignore.

I had a similar "discussion" this weekend with a dyed in the wool conservative. He's a relatively intelligent guy (despite being conservative ), but he repeated all of the same denialist nonsense spouted here including my favorite: that Mt. St. Helens released 300 years worth of CO2. All his logic was circular. Anything that actually required calculation or logic was rejected. There really isn't any discussion, because they won't let you actually lay out a point. It's all "no, that uses science, and science is suspect so I reject it." (Literally, I'm not exaggerating.)

His argument boiled down to a claim that the (unproven) assertion that one climatologist was lying meant that everyone one was. Nevermind that the stolen emails don't even indicate this. Interestingly, the denialists never apply the same standard to their own arguments. If they did they would refute themselves by 1,000's to 1 margins (if not more.)

 

If you change the words denialist with delusionist your post could be applied back on yourself. Again, you haven't proven a single thing. You live in a fantasy world. Wake up.

Edit: In fact, in light of the past week, you delusionists seem to have your tails tucked firmly between your legs. I really hope you guys are reevaluating your now fractured belief system!

 

From NIWA's website:

NIWA’s analysis of measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques, including making adjustments for changes such as movement of measurement sites. For example, in Wellington, early temperature measurements were made near sea level, but in 1928 the measurement site was moved from Thorndon (3 metres above sea level) to Kelburn (125 m above sea level). The Kelburn site is on average 0.8°C cooler than Thorndon, because of the extra height above sea level.

Such site differences are significant and must be accounted for when analysing long-term changes in temperature. The Climate Science Coalition has not done this.

NIWA climate scientists have previously explained to members of the Coalition why such corrections must be made. NIWA’s Chief Climate Scientist, Dr David Wratt, says he’s very disappointed that the Coalition continue to ignore such advice and therefore to present misleading analyses.
​

Now I don't have time to look into the details at the moment, or second guess the scientists vs. the Climate Science Coalition. In either chart though, temperatures have been rising since the Great Depression and we have been above the long term average for over a decade straight.

 

I'll agree that Prius owners tend to be more environmentally friendly than the average. But it's not like we're in some kind of bubble here, we're probably better schooled and well-read than the average person as well, on average.

There's also a *whole lot* of people who don't accept evolution, and it certainly doesn't make them right or make me trust their decisions on other matters, particularly ones that affect the well-being of my son and the generations to come.

From Americans value science, but not all of it: survey | Science | Reuters

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Many Americans still value the nation's scientific achievements, but unlike most scientists, they often pick and choose which scientific findings they agree with, especially in the areas of climate change and evolution, according to a survey released on Thursday.


The survey found nearly 9 in 10 scientists accept the idea of evolution by natural selection, but just a third of the public does. And while 84 percent of scientists say the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, less than half of the public agrees with that.


"The public and the scientists have very different views on many different issues, including the science of evolution and climate change," Scott Keeter of the Pew Research Center said in a telephone briefing.
​

 

Unfortunately we can't make the idea of human caused climate change stronger by piggy backing on evolution. Evolution is a fact. It's probably the most developed and coherent theory we have as mankind. And yet we still pass legislation against it (ie, teaching creationism in science class - which I think is among the biggest atrocities to education we have done in the last 50-100 years.) Anthropogenic global warming is the shakiest theory that people accept as "science." The fact is, we can't prove any of it, and there is no reason to accept it for fact. We can accept it as a great idea, and something that may be true, but we can not accept it as fact. And we make/are making so much legislation regarding a bunch of ideas! And as the days go we see more and more corruption surrounding it all. Scary!

 

When you do get time, have a look here:

More on the NIWA New Zealand data adjustment story Watts Up With That?

You will discover that NIWA is yet another organization that will not release data so that independent scientists are able to verify the efficacy of methodology or resulting conclusions.

The attitude seems to be, "Take us at our word and shut up. We know all about this, you do not. We stand by our conclusions."

Unfortunately, this subverts the scientific method. It is high time that scinetists in this field recognize that transparency automatically solves all the problems. If independent scrutiny verifies conclusions, all questioners are silenced. If mistakes are found, make the corrections.

If climate scientists continue to refuse transparency, it becomes transparently clear they are hiding something and pushing an agenda.

 

Those paying attention to the CRU flap have no doubt read the E-mail in which Phil Jones uses the word 'trick' to describe a method to 'hide the decline.'

He and others, as well as the compliant press, say it is a misinterpretation to see it as anything sinister or unusual, just an innocent use of the word.

Well, here is what it is all about. The TRUTH of the matter:

How “The Trick” was pulled off Watts Up With That?

Read it all or keep your head in the sand.