Nice puffery piece but someone has posted a searchable DB of the files. http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/ Trenberth himself asks "wheres the warming?" I wonder if he planned on letting the policy makers at coppenhagen in on this before they meet in december? Some snippets with text doc number references so you can check the context for yourself: http://www.briefingroom.typepad.com/ Several persons have speculated there will be another release of further documentation based on what the original source said "a sample of the info" (something like that). There is also speculation this is not a hacker, but a whistleblower. Maybe they are already working with the police because the next batch of info is the really damming part and the release was to insure an investigation really occurs (my speculation). There is talk from some these emails in 07 of fraud and government funding monies. I have been reading some of the stuff. I started on page 43 and am working my way back as time permits. Clearly, the peer review process of Climate is suspect. It also seems there is cherry-picking of data in some of the papers used to promote AGW. Absolutely, there are elements within the hierarchy of climate study which are attempting to avoid FOI with as much intent as Bush/Cheney. Above scrutiny? No. They are not.
Okay, I've read. It was a semi-Joke. The issue is the PDO index, an indicator of equatorial Pacific ocean temperatures happen on 20-30 year times scales. Apparently an author disregarded the PDO index in his comments about present El-Nino 3.4 region and over ENSO activity for the 2009 season. It's a valid argument. The PDO index is currently in a period of cooling thats showing divergence from their proposed models - they're blaming the divergence on the PDO index, it's definitely possible. They're also mentioning Solar activity is reduced implying reduced solar radiative forcing. I think it's true (I'm not sure, ask an astronomer) that solar radiation is down recently....but I think it was also in an 8,000 year peak, his argument is that the trend will resume - I think it's outside his specialty.
Oh yeah...and I remember what he's talking about.... Oct 10th - relatively normal.... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Oct 8 - Abnormal Rosby toughing Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Oct 7 - 'Abnormally strong Low' that basically caused the cooling he's referring to. It's a micro-scale meteorological event, a powerful one...but irrelevant to long range forecasting. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This information is freely available on the internet, and has been linked to in other threads in this sub-forum.
Speaking of puffery... Did you just close your eyes where the article discussed how much of the information that has been posted in those files has itself been cherry picked? Did you fail to notice the article linked to earlier in this thread which described a single blind trial done with a group of statisticians and temperature data, and the trends they found? Addendum: The very emails you reference in Post #183 perfectly illustrates the point that I was making about context.
The puffery is the opinion piece itself. Burglars spend most of their time being law abiding. Not ever single moment of every single day of Bernie Matloff was spent ripping people off. But they both go to jail for the portions of their day spent breaking the law. Even surgeons who operate on the wrong part of the patient dont always screw up, but some of them lose their license to practice medicine over it. The defense concentrates on the law abiding portion, the prosecution concentrates on the violations of the law. If you do not want to explore the volume of info released, thats fine. I am taking shortcuts myself, being as I have a life outside of this. But I dont see the nzherald link as anything but soapbox for Trenberth and irrelevant to the facts: "About 4,000 emails and documents have been posted on websites and seized on by climate change skeptics, who claim correspondence shows collusion between scientists to overstate the case for global warming, and evidence that some have manipulated evidence."
I like this approach because you can use it no matter what was stolen. Documents proving you deliberately changed numbers for personal gain? Doesnt matter as long as you discredit the other party. Falsely label the hacker as a "conspiracy nut" trying to discredit established science by placing an assumed motive and brush the whole thing off. Ah protectors of truth...classic stuff. I guess the only real solution here is for people to stop questioning the official story, because science has never been wrong before...right?:shrug: Im not saying I think the documents are real, but Im also not saying they couldn't be either. More information is needed.
Have you read some of the code for the 'modeling'? The comments by the programmers openly state they are 'fixing' the data to get a predetermined outcome. This is so funny to see. Still the 'faithful' here and elsewhere desperately cling to what is now an obvious and open lie. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
As have I. Look, I can see that a middle ground is unlikely to be reached in this, so i'm not even going to try. My point in posting the article was simply that context is everything. The emails themselves, at least, the ones you've mentioned directly are an expression of opinion. Personally, I understand all too well the frustration of a few errant data points, and the desire to simply delete them, but finding proof of an expression of frustration is not the same thing as finding the smoking gun. In all honesty, many of the specific examples I've seen of the emails (for example from a link on one of the links you've posted) suggests (to me at least) that much of what people are claiming of the emails is blown out of proportion.
Again. To provide some perspective in amongst the mud slinging. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As I understand it, this graphic was produced by HCRU, and look. The data from 1999-2000 is right there, it's even emphasized.
I'm browsing through Linux cru-code - I came across a website that's discussing what you're referring to. It says in its header "function mkp2correlation" - well...I don't know what host file that function is from, but I would like to read it. I have a feeling they're adjusting for early anomalies in what have been determined - 'Bad weather data' because of either site location or site modification. They have to do this because bad data compounds in their forecast models even if it's only a minor outlier. In the second function comment I think they're discussing something similar - temperature readings in the recent years include an influx of Equatorial and Urban data. They need to be either interpolated or artificially adjusted in order to have a smooth transition of temperatures that's not just a function of new sensor placement. It's an unfortunate reality that data recording is under perpetually varying conditions - sometimes they need to make judgement calls. There call may have been good or bad, but I think it needed to be made and it's most likely not intentionally misleading.
Yes, divergence from their models. Again. And they want to change the world over what their models predicted?! "On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote: Hi Tom How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty! Kevin" Doesnt the 2nd to the last line scare you Just A Bit?! They wont be able to prove their geoengineering is successful? Its one thing to ask for volunteers to test a new medicine.... Further: "Tom Wigley wrote: Dear all, At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data. Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second method leaves a significant warming over the past decade. These sums complement Kevin's energy work." http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1054&filename=1255532032.txt
Hence the discussion about reducing carbon emissions, rather than seeding oceans to produce algal blooms, or increasing aerosol production (just incidentally, this is part of the reason why, for the time being, I remain opposed to any sort of large scale geoengineering projects). And?
I hate to be burdensome, could your provide me with the file name in the future - for this post I could only look at the letter provided and not full context. No, why should it? Delay times are dependent on long time lapse since most of the particulates in discussion have atmospheric residence times of 60+ year with upper limits of a century and a bit more. The FED or any corporation can't determine its effectiveness until a time lapse - why would we expect an infinitely more complex system to be any different? It makes sense to remove ENSO events to find a generalized trend. ENSO is a cyclical event that's tens of thousands of years old. Recent cooling is a result of the current state of PDO and TSI events aka. 20-30 year cyclical Pacific cooling and sun spot activity events - they are undeniably cyclical. If you remove them from your model then you allow the model to more clearly show a generalized trend...keep in mind...if you remove them from historical data you remove them from present data. Thus they're hoping to show a more linear trend. Well...if it shows a linear trend the science speaks for its self, if it doesn't the science still speaks for its self. There are good and bad methods for removing these cycles, I assume they're going to do a linear regression and replace the values with the linear value which should have approximately a linear equation of dy\dx =0 if there's no warming or cooling.
I see no opposition to geoengineering in the email exchange. I see disappointment that natural events might mess up their efforts to make their theories/projects provable. Damn mother nature all to hell! Who knew nature was gonna mess up their models and plans for geoengineering!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Come now. I didn't say the email opposed geoengineering efforts did I? I simply stated my personal opinion on geoengineering efforts, and made it clear that I was stating my personal opinion of geonengineering efforts, and mentioned my personal opinion in the context of an email which essentially states "Given the current state of knowledge, we may never know if geoengineering projects have worked or not" and alluded to the point that this very fact was one of the reasons that I have my personal opinion.
File name is in link name hence the filename=1255532032.txt in the link. http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/ They have no idea if the rise is natural or AGW. I know what they hope for. Trenberth wanting more sea data to explain cooling on land while Wigley is suggesting removing inputs to show a warming trend. How can we prove it, say the men behind the curtain. Its Gotta be AGW or else its just nature.
