Question by Paul I: wHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF THE FOLLOWING , actual climate gate emails?
Remember that the parties involved have already admitted that they are genuine.
Celebrating a sceptic death
From: Phil Jones, Thu Jan 29 14:17:01 2004
In an odd way this is cheering news !
Wrong data and practices
From: Tom Wigley, Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:36:15 -0700
We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.
From: Kevin Trenberth, before Wed, 14 Oct 2009 01:01:24 -0600
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.
From: Michael Mann Date: 27/10/2009, 16:54
Perhaps we’ll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page–Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa ’06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.
From: Phil Jones, Date: Thu Mar 19 17:02:53 2009
In my 2 slides worth at Bethesda I will be showing London’s UHI and the effect that it hasn’t got any bigger since 1900. It’s easy to do with 3 long time series
From: Darrell Kaufman, Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 08:44:19 -0700
Regarding the “upside down man”, as Nick’s plot shows, when flipped, the Korttajarvi series has little impact on the overall reconstructions. Also, the series was not included in the calibration. Nonetheless, it’s unfortunate that I flipped the Korttajarvi data. We used the density data as the temperature proxy, as recommended to me by Antii Ojala (co-author of the original work). It’s weakly inversely related to organic matter content. I should have used the inverse of density as the temperature proxy. I probably got confused by the fact that the 20th century shows very high density values and I inadvertently equated that directly with temperature.
From: Keith Briffa, Date: Sun Apr 29 19:53:16 2007
I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same. I worried that you might think I gave the impression of not supporting you well enough while trying to report on the issues and uncertainties . Much had to be removed and I was particularly unhappy that I could not get the statement into the SPM regarding the AR4 reinforcement of the results and conclusions of the TAR. I tried my best but we were basically railroaded by Susan.
Fixing the data
From: Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 08:44:19 -0700
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.
From: Tom Wigley, Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
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).
From: Tom Crowley, Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:13:28 -0400
I have been fiddling with the best way to illustrate the stable nature of the medieval warm period – the attached plot has eight sites that go from 946-1960
From: Gary Funkhouser, Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:37:09 -0700
I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. (…) I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have – they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian.
From: Keith Briffa, Date: Wed Sep 22 16:19:06 1999
I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don’t have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming.
Another serious issue to be considered relates to the fact that the PC1 time series in the Mann et al. analysis was adjusted to reduce the positive slope in the last 150 years (on the assumption – following an earlier paper by Lamarche et al. – that this incressing growth was evidence of carbon dioxide fertilization) , by differencing the data from another record produced by other workers in northern Alaska and Canada (which incidentally was standardised in a totally different way). This last adjustment obviously will have a la
Answer by El Stump de Bacon
that they have a forgone conclusion to what the data is supposed to say.
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!