CRU E-mails and data

[Methuselah]

Please read the released emails. Thanks

Well, I've read the ones that have been doing the rounds within the blogosphere (Presumably, the most 'damning'?)...That's how I came to my 'Dribbling Peashooter' conclusion ...

[VillagePlank]

Pingo: there are alternative theories that are at least 'workable' Check out the leaky integrator - work on this is, once again, proceeding quite fast. There is no need to latch onto these emails to foster a rational alternative conclusion.

The state of the science, as far as I can determine, is as follows:

(i) CO2 is a greenhouse gas

(ii) We have increased concentrations of atmospheric CO2

(ii) The world has been warming

Each of these points are fundamentally true.

The question that remains is how much all of these are related. My opinion based on the LI is a lot less than is currently being said.

Edited November 29, 2009 by VillagePlank

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

CRU deliberately destroyed original data preventing scientists from being able to replicate their work.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The Climate Research Unit has been utterly discredited by Climategate. Now funding will soon be diverted to other research schools in the UK as nobody will want to be associated with CRU.

In the not too distant future the University of East Anglia will be best known for what it was best known for before CRU: obscurity. Wouldn't want to be a research student there right now. Not one bit.

Edited November 29, 2009 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Methuselah]

It seems to me, that the Deniers (not the genuine sceptics!) are all in a flap? They're waving emails around like confetti, jumping up and down like kids with new toys, and making utter fools of themselves generally...Oh dear! We forgot about all the other lines of evidence that (heaven forbid) all point in the same direction as the 'discredited' data...

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Does it all?

[Methuselah]

Well, if there is any evidence for GC, then let's have it? I'm not championing AGW. I'm merely saying that the best evidence we have indicates that the globe has warmed over the past 150 years...But, IMO, stealing emails in a futile attempt to discredit on or two scientists, will not make the Earth get cooler???

I have no interest in the politics of the matter whatsoever; and, there are many, perfectly valid, reasons for scepticism re AGW...But, denying any warming is not one of them???

[Dartmoor_Matt]

I think the point is, if there was nothing to hide, why hide it?

There is a very interesting article in the Sunday Times 'The Great Climate Chance Scandal' where it goes on to say:

This weekend it emerged that the unit has thrown away much of the data. Tucked away on its website is this statement: “Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites ... We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (ie, quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

If true, it is extraordinary. It means that the data on which a large part of the world’s understanding of climate change is based can never be revisited or checked. Pielke said: “Can this be serious? It is now impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch. [The unit] is basically saying, ‘Trust us’.”

Interesting.

[pottyprof]

Surely someone will know what they did with the figures and reverse engineer them?

Worked well with the hockey stick...........................

Oh, hang on....

[Pingo]

Well, if there is any evidence for GC, then let's have it? I'm not championing AGW. I'm merely saying that the best evidence we have indicates that the globe has warmed over the past 150 years...But, IMO, stealing emails in a futile attempt to discredit on or two scientists, will not make the Earth get cooler???

I have no interest in the politics of the matter whatsoever; and, there are many, perfectly valid, reasons for scepticism re AGW...But, denying any warming is not one of them???

The warming (to the mid 90s, now ended) was at the same pace since the end of the Little Ice Age, there is no evidence that CO2 sped up this escape from the LIA. Only the fraudulent hockey stick which tried and failed to rewrite climatic history present a different view.

We now know that statistically it was flawed thanks to StMac, and we also know the reasons why it was flawed.

Mann used proxies upside down, used proxies that weren't proxies, spliced temperature data onto these nonproxies (a "foolish and incorrect thing to do" in his own words), cherry-picked individual trees that he liked the tree-ring shape of, and then convinced his friends to back him up by intimidating previously respected climatic journals. Mann, Jones, and Briffa, the holy trinity who ruined climate science and set it back 20 years. Hopefully they won' set our economies back by an even longer period.

The emails back up that Mann, Jones and Briffa knew that the hockey stick was flawed and carried on regardless because they knew better. Unfortunately there were people around who caught them on their lying and outed them. The emails are just the final pieces of the jigsaw and realists can now see the whole thing was an egotistical fraud all along.

This is good news. We can now direct the funds that would otherwise be wasted towards improving the environment and aiding human advancement in the developing world, rather than throwing them down a drain of trashed science.

Edited November 29, 2009 by Pingo

[Methuselah]

So, there is no evidence that the Earth is cooling...It mightn't be warming as much as the doomsayers might insist? But it is not cooling!!!??? Which, considering the present state of both Solar output AND Milankovitch cycles, one would be expecting to be the case...

Can you explain that???

[PersianPaladin]

Man is the most ignorant and wasteful of creatures.

Typical of the corporatists like Lord Monckton to keep denying our contribution to throwing fuel on a fire and polluting the earth. The earth is going to give these "deniers" a rude-awakening if we don't damn well do something about it.

I think corporations should be taxed for polluting the earth and contributing to global warming. Government should be reformed and used as a voice for vigorous daily public relations promoting (rather than legally enforcing) community permaculture economies. I don't like the cap and trade or carbon-credits approach because they are ponzi schemes and do nothing to rapidly push for new solutions. We can do better without hurting so many people or being hypocrites (such as that idiot Al Gore).

Why are we still using plastic? Why are we still using fossil fuels? Hmmm....

These emails are a DISTRACTION.

Edited November 29, 2009 by PersianPaladin

[Gray-Wolf]

This seems to be the problem with the folk not aligned with AGW.Though we were already into the 'slow cooldown' to the next glacial (with Maunder min. and little ice ages pointing the way ,along with the Arctic cool down) we stopped and went the other way. During our 'recognised cooling' not only did we halt we went the other way.....why?

Surely it would be feat enough to halt the cooling (it must take a lot of energy) but to then re-start warming???

Ho Hum.

Edited November 29, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Admiral_Bobski]

This seems to be the problem with the folk not aligned with AGW.Though we were already into the 'slow cooldown' to the next glacial (with Maunder min. and little ice ages pointing the way ,along with the Arctic cool down) we stopped and went the other way. During our 'recognised cooling' not only did we halt we went the other way.....why?

Surely it would be feat enough to halt the cooling (it must take a lot of energy) but to then re-start warming???

Ho Hum.

This is probably not the thread to discuss this issue in, but what is this "recognised cooling" you are talking about? I thought the Maunder minimum was largely a solar-induced phenomenon, and I thought the Little Ice Age was just a local event. You talk as though the slide into the next ice age was a done deal before we came along and stopped it.

I don't understand your logic at all, GW.

CB

[Dartmoor_Matt]

That's because there isn't any.

Are we still not in an inter glacial period? i.e. expected warming?

[Pingo]

So, there is no evidence that the Earth is cooling...It mightn't be warming as much as the doomsayers might insist? But it is not cooling!!!??? Which, considering the present state of both Solar output AND Milankovitch cycles, one would be expecting to be the case...

Can you explain that???

We have seen cooling since 1992 or 1998 depending on how you correct for the Pinatubo event.

It's strange how some people accept that noise can make the supposed CO2 signal hard to detect, and yet expect this noise to disappear when solar effects dominate. Quite surreal.

[Gray-Wolf]

Apparently not . The Arctic lake deposits showing the 1,000yrs of cooling since the last interglacial 'max', and the fact that we are now measurably further away from the sun at our closest point than 1,000yrs ago, would suggest that we are already into our 'autumn' of the Milankovich glacial sequence.

(C-Bob , just goin' with the thread flow me mucker!)

Edited November 29, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Pingo]

Man is the most ignorant and wasteful of creatures.

Typical of the corporatists like Lord Monckton to keep denying our contribution to throwing fuel on a fire and polluting the earth. The earth is going to give these "deniers" a rude-awakening if we don't damn well do something about it.

I think corporations should be taxed for polluting the earth and contributing to global warming. Government should be reformed and used as a voice for vigorous daily public relations promoting (rather than legally enforcing) community permaculture economies. I don't like the cap and trade or carbon-credits approach because they are ponzi schemes and do nothing to rapidly push for new solutions. We can do better without hurting so many people or being hypocrites (such as that idiot Al Gore).

Why are we still using plastic? Why are we still using fossil fuels? Hmmm....

These emails are a DISTRACTION.

A quite bizarre post. I can't work out if it's irony or not.

I agree that pollution should be taxed. CO2 though is not pollution. It is vital plant food and helps the world go round. Biomass has expanded 7 recently thanks to human emissions of CO2, an overall positive thing if you like life.

The best way to see if there is a resource or food shortage is by the price of the commodity. Oil is still fairly cheap, signalling that there is no shortage. Peak Oil nonsense purveyors are only benefitting the oil producers by making people go long on oil thus pushing the price up. Well done.

Edited November 29, 2009 by Paul
Name calling removed - please read the guidelines

[Methuselah]

We have seen cooling since 1992 or 1998 depending on how you correct for the Pinatubo event.

It's strange how some people accept that noise can make the supposed CO2 signal hard to detect, and yet expect this noise to disappear when solar effects dominate. Quite surreal.

If we'd seen 'cooling' since 1998 then I'm sure that that date would be the 'sceptics'' chosen start-date?? But it isn't...1998 is! But, no...We haven't seen any cooling so-far...So, what's the need to explain it???

If, and when, any cooling actually does occur, it'll need an explanation...Until then, there's nothing much to explain... :lol:

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Surely the fact that over the last decade or so temps haven't really risen while CO2 has needs explaining? That wasn't in any of the models was it. Oh no, temp was supposed to just keep shooting right up. Or did I miss the kinks?

[Pingo]

If we'd seen 'cooling' since 1998 then I'm sure that that date would be the 'sceptics'' chosen start-date?? But it isn't...1998 is! But, no...We haven't seen any cooling so-far...So, what's the need to explain it???

If, and when, any cooling actually does occur, it'll need an explanation...Until then, there's nothing much to explain...

Maybe you need to have a word with arch-warmist Kevin Trenberth.

"It's a travesty we can't explain the global cooling".

You told me you'd read the emails.

Surely the fact that over the last decade or so temps haven't really risen while CO2 has needs explaining? That wasn't in any of the models was it. Oh no, temp was supposed to just keep shooting right up. Or did I miss the kinks?

It wasn't in the models.

But it now is.

So they don't feel the need to explain.

It's like saying, "well I didn't predict that roulette wheel would spin in 2 greens followed by 4 reds, but we can now back-predict it" and hoping people then believe you can predict the next 6 spins.

Edited November 29, 2009 by Paul
Please read the guidelines for posting into this area - and quit with the name calling.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Apparently not . The Arctic lake deposits showing the 1,000yrs of cooling since the last interglacial 'max', and the fact that we are now measurably further away from the sun at our closest point than 1,000yrs ago, would suggest that we are already into our 'autumn' of the Milankovich glacial sequence.

(C-Bob , just goin' with the thread flow me mucker!)

Here's a quote from the Wiki page on Ice Ages:

"Predicted changes in orbital forcing suggest that the next glacial period would begin at least 50,000 years from now, even in absence of human-made global warming."

Maybe we should start a thread on Ice Ages where we can explore whether or not we should be descending into an Ice Age right now...?

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

Look guys you cannot have it both ways .

You can't decry El-Nino generated record high temps as 'natural' and omit the down side of the same.

When AGW is fully in charge then it will take a great deal to offset it's influence ,at present it is augmenting 'Natural' positive temp events and mitigating the impacts of cooler 'natural phases'.

We, both sides of the debate, will end up recognising the same changes in 'natural cycles' as time moves on. It will just become ever more difficult to excuse them as anything other than impacts of drivers above and beyond anything 'natural' that we know of.

[Pingo]

Look guys you cannot have it both ways .

You can't decry El-Nino generated record high temps as 'natural' and omit the down side of the same.

When AGW is fully in charge then it will take a great deal to offset it's influence ,at present it is augmenting 'Natural' positive temp events and mitigating the impacts of cooler 'natural phases'.

We, both sides of the debate, will end up recognising the same changes in 'natural cycles' as time moves on. It will just become ever more difficult to excuse them as anything other than impacts of drivers above and beyond anything 'natural' that we know of.

Well we've seen the earth can cope with 0.8c swings in global temperature from year to year. No islands got sunk then, did they?

[Gray-Wolf]

But when the 0.8c swing tends to one direction and keeps tending there what then?

[Dartmoor_Matt]

But when the 0.8c swing tends to one direction and keeps tending there what then?

We hold winter fairs on the Thames?