Speculation on the Hadley CRU Hacking Story...

Vanity ^ | 20NOV09 | Marie

[Marie]

This email may be referring to Michael Mann. He's the guy who invented the "Hocky Stick" Graph.

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK

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

Here's the article about the arguable research he has done...

Top independent, peer-reviewed research indicating that climate change is real, deadly, and caused by humans Posted by Cory Doctorow, February 4, 2009 12:44 AM | permalink

From Nature's excellent Climate Change section, excellent summation of the year's research into anthropogenic climate change -- that is, the hard scientific evidence from unbiased, independent scientists indicating that climate change is real, caused by humans, and dangerous to the planet.

"4. The hockey stick holds up

A follow-up to the infamous 1998 'hockey stick' curve confirmed that the past two decades are the warmest in recent history. Climatologist Michael Mann's contentious graph has become a symbol of the fierce debates on evidence for global warming, to the extent that an independent investigation into the study was performed at the request of US Congressman Joe Barton. The 2006 report that resulted from the Barton enquiry criticized Mann and colleagues for their reliance on tree-ring data from bristlecone pines as a proxy to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the past 1,000 years. Although their earlier work had been largely vindicated, in September the same team revised their global surface temperature estimates for the past 2,000 years, using a greatly expanded set of proxies, including marine sediments, ice cores, coral and historical documents (Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 13252–13257; 2008). The team reconstructed global temperatures with and without inclusion of the tree-ring records: without their inclusion, the data showed that recent warming is greater than at any point in at least the past 1,300 years; inclusion of tree-ring data extended this period to at least 1,700 years. According to the Christian Science Monitor: "It still looks a lot like the much-battered, but still rink-ready stick of 1998. Today the handle reaches further back and it's a bit more gnarly. But the blade at the business end tells the same story."

[Marie]

There are over 1000 emails and every other ind of document file you can imagine and I just got my hands on it. I’m sure that somebody will find it (if it’s there) before the day is over.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Lots of concern about stuff flying around....sure sign of skulduggery....

[nathanbedford]

Thanks for the heads up on this.

[BP2]

There's all kinds of good tidbits in these emails.

Lots of talk about “forcing” the data, i.e., selecting time scale and other data, and then "smoothing" the data-points to hide anomalies, so that the graphs and other compilations suits their agenda.

Using Google Desktop and the word indexing features therein provides researchers of this data to isolate searches better by looking for their primary email host (”uea.ac.uk”) and other any other key words.

For example, this is from the file 1153254016.txt:

>>> But I
>>> think, nevertheless, that some of the reasons for (i) proportional
>>> scaling, (ii) common anomalisation period; and (iii) smoothing to
>>> achieve presentation on comparable time scales, that held for 6.13
>>> probably also hold in 6.14.
>>> However, I also appreciate the points raised by Fortunat,
>>> specifically that (i) it is nice to be able to compare the magnitude
>>> of the 11-yr solar cycles with the magnitude of the low-frequency
>>> solar variations; and (ii) that using a modern reference period
>>> removes the interpretation that we don’t even know the forcing today.
>>> So we have various advantages and disadvantages of different
>>> presentational choices, and no set of choices will satisfy all these
>>> competing demands.
>>> One thing that I am particularly perturbed about is Fortunat’s
>>> implication that to show smoothed forcings would be scientifically
>>> dishonest. I disagree (and I was also upset by your choice of
>>> wording). If it were dishonest to show smoothed data, then
>>> presumably the same holds for 6.13.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Very interesting!

[plenipotentiary]

I found this page you can use to search them with.

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/search.php

[Marie]

Someone pointed this out to me earlier today and I’ve been slogging through emails for hours!

But thank you!

Come join us here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2391082/posts

[DB]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_evidence_of_climate_fraud.html

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

fanfan

Had asked about ... "Phil Jones" on the long thread I started... regarding the web site that had the email data base and a search engine to look thru it...

Your post here at #8 details some info on Phil Jones....

One point I would add is that the CRU was initially funded by US Dollars...