So maybe there IS an AGW conspiracy after all...

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: So maybe there IS an AGW conspiracy after all...

There is an article about this email leak at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html

(If Fox is reporting it, the leak must be pure propaganda by the AGW deniers, proving the reality and dangers of AGW once again :rolleyes:)

[c1ue]

Re: So maybe there IS an AGW conspiracy after all...

Well, at least you've admitted the pseudoscience stuff wasn't working, so going the Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck route is more in line with the denialist ethic.

Who were you referring to? Yourself?

Clearly you didn't read what was posted: A direct statement that SST temperatures must be modified to minimize the 1940s temperature record because otherwise that would kill the CO2 = global warming assertion.

That this type of discussion is being held between an IPCC contributing author (Wigley) and the owner of the UEA-CRU climate recording group (Jones) is at minimum extremely inappropriate.

That the contention in question is deemed real by the two in question is also damning. Or are Tom Wigley and Phil Jones also 'deniers'?

Is the source of this information unfortunate? Certainly.

But fortunately reality doesn't rely on admissible evidence.

Furthermore the circumstances are pointing more and more to a leak from inside CRU as opposed to a random hacking. After all, why would a random hacker bother to get involved in obtaining 150 megabytes of totally useless data? That it was all packaged up as FOI seems convenient; perhaps someone got to the FOI response packet before the effort was squashed by the AGW movement in the University of East Anglia.

Oh, yeah, there are emails covering that as well. Counseling sessions - must remember that one...

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 theland 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”.
Why is it important? Because over the course of the 20th century the 40's blip leading into the cooling 50's 60's and 70's is a screaming refutation of co2 as a climate driver.
And I think newspapers will be able to explain that to your average Jerry Springer viewer. Unfortunately for Phil and Tom.

[WDCRob]

Re: So maybe there IS an AGW conspiracy after all...

You crack me up c1ue.

The next time you post something sensible and logical on global warming will be the first time.

Hacking private e-mails and selectively quoting out of context is the best your crowd can do? No science? No research? This?!

Must. Try. Harder.

[WDCRob]

Re: So maybe there IS an AGW conspiracy after all...

Not that there's much use in this given the irrational fears behind the AGW crowd, but here's what the adults in the field have to say by way of a response:

As many of you will be aware, a large number of emails from the University of East Anglia webmail server were hacked recently (Despite some confusion generated by Anthony Watts, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Hadley Centre which is a completely separate institution). As people are also no doubt aware the breaking into of computers and releasing private information is illegal, and regardless of how they were obtained, posting private correspondence without permission is unethical. We therefore aren’t going to post any of the emails here. We were made aware of the existence of this archive last Tuesday morning when the hackers attempted to upload it to RealClimate, and we notified CRU of their possible security breach later that day.

Nonetheless, these emails (a presumably careful selection of (possibly edited?) correspondence dating back to 1996 and as recently as Nov 12) are being widely circulated, and therefore require some comment. Some of them involve people here (and the archive includes the first RealClimate email we ever sent out to colleagues) and include discussions we’ve had with the CRU folk on topics related to the surface temperature record and some paleo-related issues, mainly to ensure that posting were accurate.

Since emails are normally intended to be private, people writing them are, shall we say, somewhat freer in expressing themselves than they would in a public statement. For instance, we are sure it comes as no shock to know that many scientists do not hold Steve McIntyre in high regard. Nor that a large group of them thought that the Soon and Baliunas (2003), Douglass et al (2008) or McClean et al (2009) papers were not very good (to say the least) and should not have been published. These sentiments have been made abundantly clear in the literature (though possibly less bluntly).

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 truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.

Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in ‘robust’ discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking.

It’s obvious that the noise-generating components of the blogosphere will generate a lot of noise about this. but it’s important to remember that science doesn’t work because people are polite at all times. Gravity isn’t a useful theory because Newton was a nice person. QED isn’t powerful because Feynman was respectful of other people around him. Science works because different groups go about trying to find the best approximations of the truth, and are generally very competitive about that. That the same scientists can still all agree on the wording of an IPCC chapter for instance is thus even more remarkable.

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “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) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. 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.

[Diarmuid]

Re: So maybe there IS an AGW conspiracy after all...

Not that there's much use in this given the irrational fears behind the AGW crowd, but here's what the adults in the field have to say by way of a response:

I have taken the liberty of providing the source link for your article

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more-1853


By "adults" you mean www.realclimate.com the "non-partisan agnostics" "no lose of credibility" if the emails are verifiable, sort?.

The Moderator of the site from whence your article is written is personally involved in the debacle, from what I can gather and furiously involved in a damage limitation exercise.


So if you mean by adults people who conform utterly to the AGW thesis well then :confused::rolleyes:

Robert M says:
20 November 2009 at 5:44 PM
Gavin,
Can you comment on some of those emails that include you? [edit] I’m sure that you can clear this up. Please do so.
Robert M
[Response: Sure. I take full responsibility for anything I wrote. What do you want explained? - gavin

I thought this comment from the same article summed things nicely

Karl says:
20 November 2009 at 6:33 PM
One of the most amusing aspects of this circus is the folks who suggest that maybe we all ought to agree to just ignore the content in all of these emails because they were revealed by an illegal action. From what Ivory tower do these wise monkeys come from?
This is not a legal court where evidence can be kept away from the jury. This is not the scientific debate, where publications not peer reviewed can be studiously ignored. This is now in the court of public opinion, and that jury will see everything that is available, regardless of its provenance. Some dirty laundry just got exposed to the public. It isn’t going to go away. Like it or not, it is something that will need to be addressed and explained.

[sishya]

Re: So maybe there IS an AGW conspiracy after all...

The Climate change alarmists are going berserk.

What is out ouf context here ?

"I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that"

"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?"".

"Why is it important? Because over the course of the 20th century the 40's blip leading into the cooling 50's 60's and 70's is a screaming refutation of co2 as a climate driver. "


I think it is time for these liars to go back to their Tree hugging days and leave us alone.

[sishya]

Re: So maybe there IS an AGW conspiracy after all...

So the denialists who can't make a scientific argument and who constantly lie, take things out of context, and deliberately misinterpret information in order to fool the uninformed, have stooped to stealing private emails so they can lie, selectively take things out of context, and misinterpret them. Hmmm, not just liars but thieves as well.

Well, at least you've admitted the pseudoscience stuff wasn't working, so going the Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck route is more in line with the denialist ethic.

Look hard - who is lying.

[Jay]

Re: So maybe there IS an AGW conspiracy after all...

clue1, keep it coming, you have helped me a bunch in my own thinking on this issue.

[doom&gloom]

Re: So maybe there IS an AGW conspiracy after all...

I would not want to encourage illegal activity by providing you with a link to the entire archive - and indeed have not downloaded it myself. All of the above are from already published accounts or comments from others.

But the story is on www.wattsupwiththat.com and I'd suggest you read the comments.

From what I've seen, there are all manner of emails - many of which are quite mundane.

This is like watching the death of the religion of the loons.

here is a download link I copped somewhere else... No idea if it is good or
not.

http://174.101.57.27:8080FOI2009.zip

[doom&gloom]

Re: So maybe there IS an AGW conspiracy after all...

You crack me up c1ue.

The next time you post something sensible and logical on global warming will be the first time.

Hacking private e-mails and selectively quoting out of context is the best your crowd can do? No science? No research? This?!

Must. Try. Harder.

Proof positive that religion dies hard amongst the adherents to the
Church of Glowball Warming

Frankly, the only glowball warming we have to fear in the future is this kind:

unless one considers the "hot air" coming out of THIS windbag:

[c1ue]

Re: So maybe there IS an AGW conspiracy after all...

You crack me up c1ue.

The next time you post something sensible and logical on global warming will be the first time.

Hacking private e-mails and selectively quoting out of context is the best your crowd can do? No science? No research? This?!

Must. Try. Harder.

I sympathize with your plight.

That the skeptics accusations against the AGW horde are being borne out by the horde's own emails, that's gotta hurt.

As posted in the News - climate change thread

1) Manipulation of data to suit goals
2) Freezing out or outright intimidation of other with countervailing views
3) Demonization of antagonists
4) Obstruction of access to data collected using public funds

To this I'll add the money angle: one of the documents in the trove also lists all the grant money received by the CRU head, Dr. Phil Jones, since 1990: 13.7 million pounds. This is comparable to the entire Exxon denier funding alleged by the AGW horde.

The link to this file in question:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?k...jUXpWWUE&hl=en

Well over $1M/year. Is that motive?

Head of CRU: Is that opportunity?

:rolleyes:

I should also point out that RealClimate.org - far from a non-profit disinterested entity - is actually founded and hosted by a marketing consultancy specializing in 'green' PR:

EMS Communications

http://www.populartechnology.net/200...limateorg.html

While RealClimate.org goes out of its way to say that its contributors are not paid by EMS or Fenton, on the other hand they are all recipients are large government grants and/or government employees. I think it is fair to say that the operational goals of RealClimate.org, its behavior, and the ongoing financial well being of the contributors are all strongly linked.

Similarly a number of other AGW horde web sites appear to be funded by NGOs:

Exxonsecrets: Greenpeace

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campai.../exxon-secrets

Desmoblog: James Hoggan: Hoggan and Associates (another 'green' PR consultancy): David Suzuki foundation

[c1ue]

Re: So maybe there IS an AGW conspiracy after all...

It appears one or two specific individuals are acting as the political commissars of the movement - but some of the proletariat are less fervent...

From: Jonathan Overpeck
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: letter to Senate
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:49:31 -0700
Cc: Caspar M Ammann , Raymond Bradley , Keith Briffa , Tom Crowley , Malcolm Hughes , Phil Jones , mann@xxxxx.xxx, jto@xxxxx.xx.xxx, omichael@xxxxx.xxx, Tim Osborn , Kevin Trenberth , Tom Wigley

Hi all – I’m not too comfortable with this, and would rather not sign – at least not without some real time to think it through and debate the issue. It is unprecedented and political, and that worries me.

My vote would be that we don’t do this without a careful discussion first.

I think it would be more appropriate for the AGU or some other scientific org to do this - e.g., in reaffirmation of the AGU statement (or whatever it’s called) on global climate change.

Think about the next step – someone sends another letter to the Senators, then we respond,

…

I’m not sure we want to go down this path. It would be much better for the AGU etc to do it.

What are the precedents and outcomes of similar actions? I can imagine a special-interest org or group doing this like all sorts of other political actions, but is it something for scientists to do as individuals?

Just seems strange, and for that reason I’d advise against doing anything with out real thought, and certainly a strong majority of co-authors in support.

Cheers, Peck

Dear fellow Eos co-authors,

Given the continued assault on the science of climate change by some on Capitol Hill, Michael and I thought it would be worthwhile to send this letter to various members of the U.S. Senate, accompanied by a copy of our Eos article.

Can we ask you to consider signing on with Michael and me (providing your preferred title and affiliation). We would like to get this out ASAP.

Thanks in advance,

Michael M and Michael O

Ammann, Wigley, and Trenberth are all top level IPCC staff

Jones of course is the CRU head

Briffa is a 2nd generation hockey stick-er and a contemporary of Dr. Phil Jones at the CRU

Raymond Bradley is apparently the Raymond S. Bradley of the Climate Research Center at the University of Massachusetts

Tom Crowley is apparently the Thomas Crowley from the University of Edinburg, Earth Science department, and head of SAGES (Scottish Alliance for Geoscience, Environment and Society)

Malcolm Hughes is apparently the Malcolm Hughes, professor of dendrochronology at the University of Arizona (read: tree rings) (also a 2nd generation hockey stick-er)

Tim Osborn is a contemporary of Dr. Phil Jones at the CRU

[c1ue]

Re: So maybe there IS an AGW conspiracy after all...

There is a searchable database now:

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru

Third item under 'anomaly'

From: Mike Hulme To: scenarios@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: scenarios e-conf., session 3 Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:22:30 +0100

> 3. Use of simple climate models: > 3.1 Simple models used only as tools for > extrapolating/interpolating GCM results to estimate the effect of different > scenarios or sensitivities? > 3.2 Simple models used to offer independent climate > predictions? > 3.3 Depending on the answers to 3.1 and 3.2, where will > the assessment of simple model results be located within the TAR (under the > projections or the scenarios Chapter or under an Appendix?) > 3.4 How many simple climate models are needed (again > depending on 3.1 and 3.2)?

I wish to pick up on two of the points raised by Sarah Raper and Jonathan Gregory which, while not directly answering the questions posed above, need a clear position being taken upon by IPCC. These two points are:

>From Gregory ...... "The presentation of a wide range of scenarios and sensitivities (3.1) will be a very important output of the TAR. Tom Wigley argues that it would be inappropriate to relegate it to an Appendix. None- theless it is different from the discussion and assessment of models which produce the basic projections of climate change and sea-level. I think both climate change and sea-level chapters should have separate, final, sections devoted specifically to showing the full range of uncertainties and the best estimates - an appendix to each chapter. The figures given there will be brought together in the summary of the TAR."

This is a very important concern from the perspective of how Chapter 13 (climate scenarios) is written and how WGII will look over their shoulder to WGI. For many reasons which have been well-articulated elsewhere, it is too much to expect complete consistency from WGIII emissions, to WGI models and to WGII impacts - the lags in the knowledge creation and ratification are too great. However, bear in mind that most GCM results used for climate scenario construction will be 1% per annum forcing (plus a few with 0.5% forcing, stabilisation forcing or one or more of the new SRES forcings, but these latter GCM results are unlikely to feed forward into (much) impacts work in time). However, for much impacts work to be properly assessed and interpreted by IPCC it is necessary to have used a range of climate scenarios spanning a range of risk. This is difficult, nay impossible, without resorting to simple climate model results. If WGI can Fast-track this generation of headline projections spanning a range of forcings and sensitivities, then this information may be made use of by climate scenario developers and impacts analysts. If not, then WGI (Chapters 9 and 11) will be saying one thing, and all the impacts work is in danger of saying something else (e.g. using IS92 forcings with the SAR Chapter 6 simple model projections). At worst, some careful post-hoc re-interpretation of WGII results may be necessary in light of WGI for the policymakers summary and most importantly for the Synthesis Report.

>From Raper ....... "It is a separate question as to whether the simple climate model results should subsequently be used as scaling factors for regional scenario development in the scenario chapter."

This is indeed a separate question and one on which Chapter 13 can and will 'assess' the science. Scaling of GCM results has been widely used by impacts/integrated assessors since CRU started using this methodology in the early 1990s. Whether or not to adopt/recommend scaling methods for the IPCC TAR was side-stepped by the TGCIA, although it was clearly stated within the TGCIA that basing all impacts work on 1% p.a. forced GCMs which represented a narrow range of climate sensitivities, would skew impacts results in a particular (and not altogether desirable) direction. Chapter 13 will also recognise this problem and will assess the pros and cons of scaling based on simple models, but given the short length of Chapter 13, its remit now is not to convert any headline simple model results from Chapters 9 and 11 into scaled regional scenarios for impacts work - by mid-late 1999 it will be too late for that anyway. So, different impact studies will now adopt different approaches, and WGII can assess the resulting science, but what will help the writing of Chapter 13 and WGII will be as clear a statement of intent (and ideally some preliminary results) of the sort of exercises that Sarah and Jonathan refer to, preferably using the new SRES emissions scenarios.

Mike

************************************************** ************************** Dr Mike Hulme Reader in Climatology tel: +44 1603 593162 Climatic Research Unit fax: +44 1603 507784 School of Environmental Science email: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx University of East Anglia web site: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~mikeh/ Norwich NR4 7TJ ************************************************** **************************

The 4th item in anomaly:

From: Mike Hulme To: Jose Caicedo ,cubasch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, desanker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,<GIORGI@XXXXX...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Xiaso Dai ,Mohammed El-Raey , djgriggs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,nleary@xxxxxx...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, lautenschlager@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,Luis Mata , jfbmitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,Nguyen Nghia , Dr M.Lal ,lindam@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,t-morita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Daniel Murdiyarso ,nobre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mnoguer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,hm_pitcher@xxx...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, bscholes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,phw@xxxxxxxxx...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: URGENT - IPCC DDC consultation Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 12:46:01 +0100

Dear TGCIA'ers,

I have two questions to raise with you regarding the IPCC Data Distribution Centre. The first one concerns advice regarding a GCM submission to the DDC and the second concerns mirror web sites for the DDC.

1. GCM submission. ------------------- The LMD (through Herve Le Treut) has requested the runs from LMD coupled GCM be lodged with the DDC. His original request (July 1998) is appended below as text ATTACHMENT 1. We originally rejected the submission on the grounds that the runs were not historically forced, i.e., they were cold-start experiments with 1% p.a. forcing being introduced from 'current' baseline and different to all other DDC runs.

However, LMD have re-submitted their request for reasons outlined in ATTACHMENT 2 which is an email from my DDC Co-Manager Michael Lautenschlager (dated 12 February 1999). In this ATTACHMENT Michael makes a proposal to include the LMD model runs, but as 'related modelling results' rather than as 'full status' DDC results.

We need to take TGCIA soundings on this. Strictly, the LMD runs do *not* qualify according to the criteria the TGCIA established back in May 1997. The question is how flexible are we prepared to be and whether including model runs with a different experimental design may either a) confuse impacts users and/or b) invalidate inter-model comparisons. Bear in mind also that if/when new GCM results forced by SRES forcings are generated this summer and beyond, we will need to consult again about how the DDC handles/presents these new SRES runs. At present the DDC does not have a mandate for these either.

Please would you submit your opinions to me by Monday 12 April. I will then compile the views expressed and make a recommendation.

2. DDC mirror web sites. ------------------------ With the DDC web site now fully operational (and the CD-ROM about to be released) we need to consider our idea for mirror sites around the world. Users are picking up data and information from both the Yellow Pages (full GCM archive site) and Green Pages (synthesised GCM results, observed data, and other scenario data and visualisation), but for some users/regions/operations access is very slow.

Proposed mirror sites might include: CSIRO (Victoria), IIT (Delhi), NCAR (USA) and Cape Town (S.Africa). Maybe a Japanese site also.

The mirror sites could consist only of the Green Pages (about 0.5GB requirement) or both Green and Yellow Pages (several GB requirement, but I have not checked exactly how much with DKRZ). I know that we can arrange for the mirror sites to automatically refresh every 24 hours therefore reflecting perfectly any developments on the host mother-site (i.e., the mirror sites must be perfect mirrors).

Could I also ask for your views on the desirability of these options, whether Green only or Green plus Yellow, how many mirrors and where they should be? Please let me have your views on this also by Monday 12 April.

********* In considering both these questions it is perhaps worth thinking about the longer-term future of the DDC beyond TAR and into 4th IPCC Assessment. Although TGCIA and the DDC has now only a mandate through the lifetime of TAR, for us to really learn from our experiences and to achieve full benefits for IPCC, then we need to be thinking ahead beyond year 2000. *********

Mike Hulme

__________________________________________________ __________________________ ___

ATTACHMENT 1 __________________________________________________ __________________________ ___ Subject: From: Herve.Letreut@xxxxxxxxx.xxx at internet Date: 9/7/98 9:08 pm

Dear Maria,

At the IPCC meeting a week ago, I spoke with M. Hulme concerming the possibility of having our simulations being integrated in the IPCC data base (DDA?)

I think that our simulations meet a number of the criteria: - the control simulation is 200 years long - the model has participated to CIMP1 and CMIP2 - it is described in details (description posted on the WEb in the Euroclivar Web site: http://www.knmi.nl/euroclivar)

Our main problem concerns the definition of the experiments. We have used a model without flux correction and have decided to start from observed Levitus data. The coupled model has some drift but it stabilizes rather quickly and the thermohaline circulation is quite stable Accordingly our initial CO2 value corresponds to a recent past: 320 ppm. >From that value we have increased directly the CO2 concentration of 1 percent per year. We have therefore not allowed for an 'historic' increase of the CO2 before the actual 1percent increase, which is due to a lack of understanding of the IPCC rules.

My feeling is that scientifically this is not too important (we have no 'cold start' symptom when we look at the difference between the perturbed and controled run). I have realized that in the context of the IPCC, however, people may think otherwise.

My question is two-fold: - Can our experiment nevertheless be integrated in the IPCC data base. This is important to us: if it cannot we will not realize the sulfate experiment we had planned to do, and wait for the future scenarios to be decided. - I hope that I will be more easily aware of the IPCC initiatives in the future. But is there any procedure through which we can make sure in advance that a given experiment we decide to carry out does get approoved by the IPCC?

Sincerely yours

Herve ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Herve Le Treut Laboratoire de Meteorologie Dynamique, Universite PetM Curie , Tour15-25, 5eme etage, boite 99, 4 place Jussieu 75252 Paris Cedex 05 (mail sent to Ecole Normale Superieure also reaches me) tel: +33 (0)1 44 27 8406 fax : +33 (0)1 44 27 62 72 secretariat du LMD a Jussieu: +33 (0)1 44 27 50 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

__________________________________________________ _____________

ATTACHMENT 2 __________________________________________________ ______________

Hamburg, den 12. February 1999 (15:00)

Dear Maria and Mike,

last week I have a discussion with Herve LeTreut from LMD in Paris about the DDC rejection of the French contribution to the climate scenario calculations. He informed that the climate modellers are running into political difficulties because no French data are contained in the DDC.

We have rejected the data last year because they design of his experiments are not directly comparable to the DDC requirements. A recalculation is not possible within short term.

In order to prevent the French colleagues from difficulties I suggest to install an additional section in our DDC page which may be entitled 'DDC related modelling results'. In this section Herve`s data as well as data from other groups can be disseminated. The processing priority is certainly lower than for the direct DDC data.

Do you agree with my suggestion?

Best regards, Michael

More 'anomaly' results (>'s removed) (Also clear that Mann is well aware of differences arising from different start dates - the implication here isn't fraud necessarily as much as it is confirmation bias. Equally bad from a scientific standpoint though)

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Tim Osborn , imacadam@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Re: Briffa et al. series for IPCC figure Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 12:31:56 -0400 Cc: k.briffa@uea, p.jones@uea, ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tkarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Dear Tim,

Thanks for the information. I don't want to speak for Tom Karl, but I think it may be a bit too late (past the Oct 1 deadline) to make further revisions in the draft 1.0. It would be a bit of an imposition on Tom at this point given what he's been through in finalizing the draft. However, I see no reason that we can't make that revision when the paper comes back from expert review in a couple months. We'll have the further advantage that the supporting manuscript you describe should be available at that point (a requirement in the IPCC peer-review process). I think we'll all be looking forward to updating the plot w/ the latest series you describe...

As for decisions about the most appropriate baseline period to use for the series, that is as you point out an important issue and one we have to consider with some circumspection, especially if a "modern" calibration (e.g., 1931-1960) to the instrumental record gives a substantially different alignment from the more 19th century-oriented calibration you describe. The tradeoff of course is that the instrumental series itself is considerably less certain prior to the 20th century while, as you point out, the non-climatic influence on tree growth may be setting in by the mid 20th century. Something I think we can iron out satisfactorily at the next juncture.

I hope the above sounds ok to you guys. Let me know. Thanks,

mike

At 04:18 PM 10/5/99 +0100, Tim Osborn wrote: 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. A new manuscript is in preparation describing this alternative analysis method, the calibration of the resulting series, and their comparison with other reconstructions. We are consdering submitting this manuscript to J. Geophys. Res. when it is ready, but for now it is best cited as: Briffa KR, Osborn TJ, Schweingruber FH, Harris IC and Jones PD (1999) Extracting low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring density network. In preparation. Keith will be sending you a copy of the manuscript when it is nearer to completion. I have also attached a PS file showing the original Briffa et al. (1998) curve, with annotation of cold years associated with known volcanic eruptions. Overlain on this, you will see a green curve. This is the new series with a 40-yr filter through it. This is just so that you can see what it should look like (***ignore the temperature scale on this figure***, since the baseline is non-standard). With regard to the baseline, the data I've sent are calibrated over the period 1881-1960 against the instrumental Apr-Sep tempratures averaged over all land grid boxes with observed data that are north of 20N. As such, the mean of our reconstruction over 1881-1960 matches the mean of the observed target series over the same period. Since the observed series consists of degrees C anomalies wrt to 1961-90, we say that the reconstructed series also represents degrees C anomalies wrt to 1961-90. One could, of course, shift the mean of our reconstruction so that it matched the observed series over a different period - say 1931-60 - but I don't see that this improves things. Indeed, if the non-temperature signal that causes the decline in tree-ring density begins before 1960, then a short 1931-60 period might yield a more biased result than using a longer 1881-1960 period. If you have any queries regarding this replacement data, then please e-mail me and/or Keith. Best regards Tim Calibrated against observed Apr-Sep temperature over 1881-1960 averaged over all land grid boxes north of 20N Year Reconstructed temperature anomaly (degrees C wrt 1961-90) {data list snipped}

[c1ue]

Re: So maybe there IS an AGW conspiracy after all...

More 'anomaly' fun

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Tim Osborn , Ed Cook Subject: Re: Your letter to Science Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 12:44:53 -0400 Cc: Malcolm Hughes , esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jto@u.arizona.edu, srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

HI Tim,

Thanks for your message. Yes, you guys have us beat on the early monday end of things!

Your points are all taken. I think we all agree there is much work left to be done, more than enough for all of us to continue to be involved in constructive collaboration, etc.

Scott and I, for example, are almost done writing up the work based on your visit w/ us last year, and will send the initial draft on to you, Keith, and the others involved in the near future. It will be a good chance to try to address a lot of these questions in an article of adequate length to discuss the nuances that unfortunately cannot be addressed in a shorter piece.

I also appreciate your more detailed comments about the comparisons, etc. Your points are all reasonable ones. We can maintain an honest difference about how well those points were conveyed in the Science piece (for example, you can imagine how the statement in your piece "This record has a smaller amplitude of century-to-century variability, and is consistently at or near the upper limit of alternate records produced by other researchers" might indeed have been interpreted as setting MBH99 apart as, in your words, an "outlier").

We have good reason to believe that our reconstruction *will* in fact nderestimate extratropical temperature means but far less so full globe/hemisphere-means prior to the 18th century because the basis functions that primarily set the extratropics apart from the full hemispheric patterns (e.g., NAO type patterns and other anomaly patterns largely carried by EOFs #2 and #3) start to drop out from our basis set prior to the 18th century, while the pattern that best resolves the full global and/or hemispheric mean (with note from MBH98, particularly large loadings primarily in the tropics and subtropics) still

remains. That is why we have never published an *extratropical* temperature reconstruction prior to the 18th century. I would be happy to discuss this point with you and Keith and others in more detail. Thus, I have compared Esper et al w/ our records in the manner described in my previous email, which I think allows us to diagnose the extent to which differing high-latitude and full-hemispheric patterns may, at times, explain the somewhat modest differences between the records when similarly scaled to the full hemispheric 1856-1990 mean, and always, within the context of the diagnosed uncertainties. There is no guarentee, as you say, that the uncertainties are correct, but I personally believe they'll stand up over time. You can call me on this 10 years from now, and somebody will owe

somebody a beer...

In any case, I hope and fully expect we can all continue to all be engaged in constructive interaction & hopefully continued collaboration. It will require some sensitivity on all our part to the larger issues surrounding our work, and the way it gets presented to the broader community, but I don't think that should be all that difficult.

I look forward to these more constructive interactions. I'll do my best to foster them,

Mike

At 01:57 PM 4/15/02 +0100, Tim Osborn wrote:

Dear all,

well, the time zone may let you have the last word before the weekend, but we can get the first word in on a Monday morning!

At 22:35 12/04/02, Michael E. Mann wrote:

In keeping w/ the spirit of Tom's and Keith's emails, I wanted to stress, before we all break for the weekend, that this is ultimately about the science, its not personal. If my comments seemed to assail e.g. Keith's motives or integrity, etc. I believe that they were misunderstood (as I tried to clarify that in my previous message), but I can see that there was a potential for misunderstanding of my message (precision in wording is very important) given the high levels of sensitivity in this debate. So I wanted to leave no uncertainty about that. And of course, I very much apologize to Keith (and Tim) if they took them my comments that way. They, again, were most decidedly not intended that way.

Thanks for clarifying that, Mike. I think that both Keith and I interpreted your earlier e-mail as being more critical of us than you actually meant it to be.

Most issues surrounding the recent Esper et al. and Briffa & Osborn pieces seem to have been covered adequately already. There are just a couple of issues on which I'd like to add a few comments, hopefully clarifying the situation rather than opening up more avenues for debate.

The first relates to the purpose and style of the Briffa & Osborn piece. Perspectives are brief, non-technical and not peer-reviewed. Our instructions were: "The Perspective should provide an overview of recent research in the field and explain to the general reader why the work is particularly exciting." Is it any surprise then that we should focus on the new insights provided by the Esper et al. work, and that it suggests a different climate history than earlier work? And that the constraints of the perspectives format (in terms of length, audience and style) prevented us from listing ALL the caveats and uncertainties related to this and earlier reconstructions and that might be of relevance to their intercomparison? I don't think it is surprising, nor do I think we should be criticised for it.

Moreover, despite the constraints of the perspectives format, I think we were very careful with our wording to avoid misleading the reader. The reference to the IPCC, for example, was not at all sloppy - the opposite, in fact, since it was very carefully worded: the IPCC Synthesis Report is referred to, rather than the full TAR, and it is quite true that there is a focus on the reconstruction of Mann et al. in the former. As Mike says, IPCC conclusions were based on other work too. But I'd guess that many of the readers of our perspective won't have read the full IPCC report, so we thought it valid to focus on the difference between the new work and that shown in the Synthesis Report (which more will have seen). To do this is certainly not unfair to the IPCC. It would only have been unfair if we had implied that the IPCC had ignored this new work - but of course we weren't doing that, because how could one expect the TAR to consider work that is published a year after the TAR itself? We were similarly careful with our wording in our brief mention of the MWP, by saying it is "more pronounced" in Esper et al. - this doesn't mean it is warmer than the others (and thus has no implications for the IPCC conclusion of recent unusual warmth), rather it is pronounced because it is followed by stronger cooling.

The second issue is our re-calibration of the reconstructions. While it hasn't been explicitly stated, I get the impression that this is considered by some to be a poor thing to do. The particular re-calibration we do has a number of effects, including making the Mann et al. reconstruction appear more consistently at the top of the range of alternatives. But please let me assure you (Mike, Ray and Malcolm) that the reason for re-calibrating the records is definitely *not* to make your record appear as an outlier, and I hope you believe me. Indeed, in Jones, Osborn & Briffa (2001: Science 292, 662-667) we showed various NH records *without* applying our re-calibration.

We produced our first comparison of records for an earlier Science perspectives piece in 1999 (Briffa & Osborn, 1999) and thought it would be useful to do a re-calibration to remove some of the reasons for inter-reconstruction differences (which can be due to:

different proxy data, different statistical methods, different calibration target and different calibration period). The latter two reasons were removed by re-calibrating against a common target series and over a common period. We updated this in Briffa et al. (2001) and acknowledged that the target series (in terms of its spatial and seasonal definition) may not be optimal in all cases. Indeed, it may be especially sub-optimal for Mann et al., because their reconstruction approach combines the proxy records to optimally reconstruct full NH, annual mean T (whereas we have selected land north of 20N, warm-season T as our target for the recalibration). Despite this, we felt justified in doing the recalibration because the Mann et al. series still outperformed the others in terms of its correlation with the instrumental record over the calibration period! In our latest piece, we have updated the intercomparison in two ways (as well as including new series): (i) we took the spatially-resolved gridded reconstructions of Mann et al. and extracted only land boxes north of 20N; and (ii) we used annual, not warm-season, temperature as the target. The first of these (as explained by Keith and I in an earlier e-mail, which is repeated below because it didn't get sent to all of you firs time round) deals with all the points raised by Mike about tropical versus extratropical differences. I would again argue that we were not sloppy, because these changes to our intercomparison were carefully thought out.

So that explains what we have done and why. There is some sensitivity, clearly, to calibration choices, which implies to me that the true uncertainty ranges are probably larger than those estimated solely from the statistical properties of calibration residuals (as used by Briffa et al., and [I think] by Mann et al.). There is clearly more progress to be made!

Best regards to you all

Tim

------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 17:17:55 +0100
To: "Michael E. Mann" ,p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mhug hes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,rkerr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,bhanson @xxxxxxxxx.xxx
From: Keith Briffa
Subject: Re: Briffa & Osborn piece
Cc: Tim Osborn

Dear Mike, (and interested colleagues)

Given the list of people to whom you have chosen to circulate your message(s), we thought we should make a short, somewhat formal, response here. I am happy to reserve my informal response until we are face to face! We did not respond earlier because we had more pressing tasks to deal with. This is not the place to go into a long or over-detailed response to all of your comments but a few brief remarks might help to clear up a couple of misconceptions.

You consider our commentary on Ed and Jan's paper "more flawed than even the paper itself" on the basis that scaling the relationship between full Northern Hemisphere and extratropical Northern Hemisphere is *much* more problematic than even any of the seasonal issues we discuss. In fact we did not do this. The curve labelled Mann99 in our figure was, in fact, based on the average of only the land areas, north of 20 degrees N, extracted from your spatially-resolved reconstructions. We then scaled it by calibration against the instrumental annual temperatures from the same region. This is, just as you stress in your comments on the Esper et al. paper, what should have been done. We think that this single point addresses virtually of all your concerns. We can, of course, argue about what this means for the pre-1400 part of your reconstruction, when only 1 EOF was reconstructed, but the essential message is that we did our best to exclude the tropics (and the oceans too!) from your series so that it could more readily be compared with the other records.

The fact that we have used only the extra-tropical land from your data is not clear from the text, so we can see why you may not have appreciated this, but we think you will concede that this fact negates much of what you say and that we acted "more correctly" than you realised. Blame *Science* for being so mean with their space allocation if you want! Remember that this was an unrefereed piece and we felt justified in concentrating on one issue; that of the importance of the method of scaling and its effect on apparent "absolute" reconstruction levels. In our draft, we went on to say that this was crucial for issues of simple model sensitivity studies and climate detection, citing the work of Tom Crowley and Myles Allen, but this fell foul of the editor's knife.

You also express concerns about the calibration of Esper et al. (e.g., you say "if the authors had instead used the actual (unsmoothed) instrumental record for the extratropical northern hemisphere to scale their record, their reconstruction would be much closer to MBH99").

This point is wholly consistent with our discussion in the perspective piece, and indeed we show that in absolute terms the records are closer when Esper et al. is calibrated using unsmoothed data but since the variance is also reduced, the significance of the differences may be just as high.

Finally, we have to say that we do not feel constrained in what we say to the media or write in the scientific or popular press, by what the sceptics will say or do with our results. We can only strive to do our best and address the issues honestly. Some "sceptics" have their own dishonest agenda - we have no doubt of that. If you believe that I, or Tim, have any other objective but to be open and honest about the uncertainties in the climate change debate, then I am disappointed in you also.

Best regards

Keith (and Tim)

[D-Mack]

Re: So maybe there IS an AGW conspiracy after all...

Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists

Hundreds of emails and documents exchanged between world's leading climate scientists stolen by hackers and leaked online


Hundreds of private emails and documents allegedly exchanged between some of the world's leading climate scientists during the past 13 years have been stolen by hackers and leaked online, it emerged today.
The computer files were apparently accessed earlier this week from servers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, a world-renowned centre focused on the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.
Climate change sceptics who have studied the emails allege they provide "smoking gun" evidence that some of the climatologists colluded in manipulating data to support the widely held view that climate change is real, and is being largely caused by the actions of mankind.
The veracity of the emails has not been confirmed and the scientists involved have declined to comment on the story, which broke on a blog called The Air Vent.




...



A spokesman for Greenpeace said: "If you looked through any organisation's emails from the last 10 years you'd find something that would raise a few eyebrows. Contrary to what the sceptics claim, the Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, Nasa and the world's leading atmospheric scientists are not the agents of a clandestine global movement against the truth. This stuff might drive some web traffic, but so does David Icke."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ils?CMP=AFCYAH

oh boy