New information on the CRU emails, now it appears it may not be a hack but a insider:
The anonymous tipster, whom many people initially assumed had “hacked” into the computers at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (repeatedly called the “Hadley CRU,” by mistake), might in fact be a CRU insider who released the files for his own reasons.
The user, known only as “FOIA” (which now appears to be a reference to the British equivalent of the US Freedom of Information Act), left only one comment on The Air Vent to announce his release of his 61-MB ZIP archive. He has never been heard from since, nor has anyone stepped forward claiming to be that person since the story became widely known.
Persons knowledgeable in information security hold that this is not the behavior of a hacker. A hacker normally boasts of his act, even if he were hired or otherwise suborned to commit his act by someone else. These two reports provide illustrations of such behavior.
Other commenters have observed that the very form and organization of the archive, which expands to 168 MB of text files, word-processing documents, PDF files, raw data, and even program code, indicate that someone already having access to the system logged in through his usual channels, made the archive, and then logged out. The user’s choice of words indicate someone having a motive to disclose to the world certain activities and mindsets that the user found distasteful, at least.
This Examiner has been able to reconstruct a timeline of the story
Read the original article to see the timeline, it is quite damning evidence that this was no hacker, but an insider and it all boils down to:
Mr. Stephen McIntyre at Climate Audit has made no secret of his repeated attempts to demand, under Britain’s Freedom of Information Act, that Phil Jones and his team yield up the data that are the basis of their claims for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and its effects. Preliminary analysis of the archived e-mails also indicates that Jones knew of McIntyre’s efforts and was taking steps to stall and thwart them, in violation of the law. Perhaps, then, someone at CRU decided to take the law into his own hands.
Doesn’t surprise me one bit that they would resort to violate the law….all in the name of “science”
See author page
Meaning Phil Jones violating the law, Curt? “FOIA” would have the status of a whistle blower in this case. And if he/she violated a confidentiality agreement for corporate status, this would be a civil contratual penalty, IMHO.
But I suspect you and I mean the same thing, yes?
Perhaps the most insight as to who is FOIA may lie in who is the most disgruntled about this fudging of numbers by scientists. Mike Hulme certainly was, but he is also no AGW denier. Thus his damning of this practice comes from one of “their own”.
Maybe Patvann, who has the entire file, can see some potential whistle blowers in the data as he’s pounding thru the content. All speculation, of course. But certainly a willing participant in the figures lie game is not likely to be the whistle blower. So one would expect they can be eliminated.
BTW, two *very* interesting links for you all here.
First, Roger Pielke Jr’s blog with some very captivating comments from the readers. Pielke Jr. is a professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder. His father, Pielke Sr, and founder of the Pielke Research Group, is also in the climate biz and and has his own blog. Pielke Sr, like Mike Hulme, is also not a denier, but rails against the manipulation of science facts. As a matter of fact, Pielke’s (the Sr) credits getting his website to Climate Audit, Steve McIntye’s blog site.
Second, in the comments of Pielke’s thread about the CRU data exposure is a link to a Sept 2009 National Review article about how the database for the Jones and Wigley record – the primary standard for hte holier than though political piece known as the IPCC report – had simply (and conveniently) disappeared…. “discarded or purged” from an old computer, perhaps. Pielke Jr also blogged on the same mysterious disappearance of the original database a few weeks earlier.
The article walks thru the history of both Steve McIntyre and an Aussie scientist, Warwick Hughes, who had the audacity to question Phil Jones on what he bases his revered findings.
Pielke Jr was also another who requested the original database from Phil Jones, who responded:
Patrick J. Michaels (author of the linked National Review article above) called foul on that sidestep of truth, saying:
Today, on Roger Pielke Sr’s blog, he has this post about he is being impugned and his climate views misrepresented by Tom Peterson of the NCDC in correspondence to Phil Jones about a comment Pielke had made in a report in 2005:
As Pielke is quick to say, he is not a climate skeptic nor denier. This, however, is not stopping the unethical politico-scientists from eating their own when the latter group points out “inconvenient truths” in their base data collection.
heh
… still waiting for larry to explain why they felt the need to remove the Medeival Warm Period temeratures from their data, why they needed to remove the 30s-40s warming cycle from their data, why they felt the need to discredit publications that printed research that didn’t jibe with theirs, why, why, why, why, WHY?
As fascinating as this story is (“scientists” LYING and corrupting data? Who knew?) I wonder how much of this is getting out to the general public?
I know support for big government intervention to address climate change is dropping fast in the polls and if something like this story were to go mainstream those numbers would sink faster.
But I’ll willing to bet that if the “news” media beyond Fox News reports this at all it’s a one day story at best and sandwiched in between video of cute polar bear cubs playing with sad music in the background.
The best thing about this, is that it might give the scientists who have felt “shy” about Human-caused global warming, (or “change” depending on the invocation) the strength to come forward.
Otto:
Because it was hotter during the “MWP” than it is now and it was also warm during the 30’s and they don’t want the “generally uninformed public” to know what went on the the 1990’s wasn’t the earths hottest time period.
In the UK suspicion is falling on the USA as a source of this hack.
Who benefits from it? There is no organised sceptic movement in the UK, policy for Copenhagen is fixed and the chances of being prosecuted for the hack are significant. In the US there is an organised sceptic movement, your policy for Copenhagen is not fixed and there is little chance of being prosecuted for the hack.
In addition Senator Inhofe claimed that this was the year of the sceptic on Wednesday: after the hack but before it was made public.
And the real smoking gun: the hacker is called FOIA. In the UK we talk of the FIA or a FOI request.
Ah yes, Bucko, that I know.
I just wondered if larry had the intelligence to know that, also.
I’ve always wondered why the sceptics are so hung up on the MWP. You see there is no eveidence for a cause of higher temperatures then, so if it did exist as global higher temperatures then something trivial caused it. This means that the climate is very sensitive, which is not what you want to imply if you’re trying to say that CO2 is not a problem.
Perhaps you in the British streets do, turbo… however your media references refer to it as FOIA or FoIA. Perhaps the British insider (which I think “inside” is the most likely source) reads more than you do, and picks up the complete phrase of your 2003 Act.
If that’s the best you can do for concocting a conspiracy, diverting attention from the deliberate manipulation of facts in order to advance an agenda, you’re on as thin of ice as the data itself.
But take heart… the ice is thickening, despite the loudest chicken little cries.
When I was just a young ‘un, I thought I wanted to be a scientist. A family friend talked me out of it. He told me that no matter where I went to work, I would have to sell my soul. If I worked for a big company, my research would need to reflect the views of that company. Work for myself, I would need to find grants and the work would need to reflect the views of those providing the grants. But the scientific community has also worked through this because of transparency and peer review. Climate research has neither. The climate change advocates have constantly refused to have their work peer reviewed and have gone so far as to destroy data rather than have it exposed to review. Any scientist worth their salt would toss these idiots under the bus and then back over them. What they are doing isn’t science, it’s called an agenda.
And by the way, engineers are smarter and we’re better looking. 😉
@Turboblocke said: “This means that the climate is very sensitive, which is not what you want to imply if you’re trying to say that CO2 is not a problem.”
I guess logic isn’t your strong suit now is it?
The climate may indeed be sensitive to certain factors but that does not mean the climate is sensitive to CO2 levels. In fact, it is fairly well substantiated that CO2 levels FOLLOW temperature changes and not lead them.
What is the real driving factor to climate change?
Hint: Do you need me to shed some LIGHT on that?
http://www.springerlink.com/content/q1510878h4857754/
And this brief video primer is an excellent debunker of the CO2 myth:
Finally, I doubt there are many “scientists” (that word has become devalued) who would argue that if we followed every prescription of Al Gore and friends that the climate would change one bit as a result. There is just no sound evidence to suggest that altering man’s behavior will have the slightest impact on the climate.
To add to Mike’sA comment about driving factors of climate changes and temperatures, I’ve throw some related data for Turbo on another thread. We have parallel info going here. So it’s good if some of the comments were hyperlinked to related data on the other.
It’s odd to me that people seem completely blinded to the fact that the “climate change” (formerly known as global warming, anthropogenic warming, greenhouse, etc)., are JUST as defensive, and evasive, and political, etc., as anybody else. Yes, it make be a completely shock, but the “greenies” have lobbyist. Lobbyist who represent “businesses”…as in “for a profit” who seek to convince large spenders (like our gov) to replace portions of our current energy base with “their” products.
And where these things “have” happened on a large (or larger) scale, like Germany, it has failed miserably in every area of what it promised to do easily …if only given the chance.
Further, I find some of the defensive arguments about whats in some of these emails ridiculous. The fact that some PITA opponent of their work (ie., the “skeptics” and heretics) is an ass who had previously misrepresented how much data he was given, doesn’t excuse them for what THEY do or say otherwise. It’s clear to me from these emails that they DID in fact deny FOIA requests for data..and deleted their emails. That appears to be a “fact” that is not disputed. Further, despite whatever earlier beefs they had, it appears that they did in fact deny to send certain requested data or information because the scientist who requested it would just use it to try and disprove their results. duh! So much for science.
And yet…as a defense…they go “back” to suggest that none of this somehow matters or is important because that scientist was an obvious skeptic/opponent of their work in the past. Nor does the fact that these emails may have been “stolen”, change what’s in them and what it means.
It’s also interesting that every time something like this happens, or some little hole/leak appears in their balloon, the rush to fix it is proactive and extremely organized and widespread. Within an hour or two…everyone is on the same page, with the same answers and same arguments to divert attention from what just happened. It didn’t take long for them to pull that one paragraph out of 60megs of emails to hold up and suggest everything else was simply being taken out of context. Every blog, every article…same quote. It was if they were seeing…see…this could be completely innocent…so…”skeptics” are jumping to conclusions to try and make something out of nothing…move along, move along…etc. Sheep.
Sorry Mate, but if you Google FIA, limiting it to the UK you get over 5,400,000 hits. FOIA gives 85,000.
The only reason you’re seeing FOIA more often in the media now is because the hacker raised it’s profile.
Thanks for the link to the other thread: I see someone claims that global warming has been replaced by “climate change” . Check out when the IPCC was created and what the CC means. (That would be 1988 and Climate Change)
Here’s a basic intelligence test for you guys:(If you pass this there may be hope for you and I’ll be prepared to educate you further) how come GISSTEMP shows a higher anomaly that the HADCRUT index which in turn is higher than UAH/RSS?
Turboblocke — go away you arrogant jerk…
Very amusing CBD: your colleagues arrogantly assume that I need to be educated and that’s fine by you, but when I act the same you call me an arrogant jerk.
A couple of quotes from above for you to peruse:
“I guess logic isn’t your strong suit now is it?”
“Hint: Do you need me to shed some LIGHT on that?”
“I’ve throw some related data for Turbo on another thread. ”
Ot how about telling a Brit how we speak in the UK… “Perhaps you in the British streets do, turbo… however your media references refer to it as FOIA or FoIA.”
It has not gone unnoticed in the UK that our trans-Atlantic cousins have been trying to rubbish Hadley Centre and CRU for the last few years. We wonder why it is CRU gets inundated with multiple vexatious FOI requests, while the US Institutions don’t. Obviously it would be un-American and unpatriotic to trash NASA, but attacking your allies is OK.
@ Turboblocke
I’m afraid you’re wrong there little cousin. James Hansen, NASA’s climate chief, we bash him quite reqularly. And consider it very patriotic to do so.
Just to underline that the UK is not a part of the USA and has different rules, taken from RC.
“Further to Martin Vermeer’s point above that it’s legal to delete materials not subject to a FOI request, most of the people commenting on the illegality of deleting emails are probably not familiar with the relevant British law and practice. Nor am I. But the official guidance states that “staff must identify email messages that are records of their business activities and those that are not” and are in fact required to eventually delete those that do not belong in the corporate official record.
http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/foi-procedural-information.htm “
@Turboblocke: you totally ignored my “hint” above. I can understand why.
Easier to play these little “you started it” games than deal with the substance here.
The fact remains that manmade CO2 is NOT the problem here and if scientists were freed of any career and financial considerations to engage in an HONEST debate we might just find that the driver of climate change IS the Sun.
Of course you’d have to be a fool to think the Sun isn’t responsible for climate change!
@ Turbolocke
Does the FOI really matter? Science is supposed to be open for review, especially peer review. Hiding you data and how you arrived at that data does nothing to further the scientific process.
Turbo, you use a Google search result as evidence of whether FOIA, FIA or FOI is more prominent? Heaven help us if this is the extend of your evidentiary skills. Plus it also indicates you are clueless as to how the Google search engine works.
“climate change” v “global warming”. Yes, the “CC” in IPCC stands for climate change. The first IPCC report was in 1990. However the media and public phrase became known as global warming, as that’s the man-made “change” they were addressing. However data was on the horizon and in 1992, the issue was discussed at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit where they adopted “climate change” as the preferred description for media consumption. However the media then, and to this day, still interchange the phrases.
Climate Change in IPCC speak is basically change they define as caused by man, and not nature. In itself, it’s a lofty and scientifically iffy quest. So what they don’t know, they make up, exaggerate, cherry pick, and mutilate.
I assure you, Turbo, if you had definitive proof of global warming… something that no one is able to do to date… I’m quite sure you’d have fame and notoriety that you do not enjoy now. While you attempt to play cute “intelligence test” games, it does not alter the reality that even scientists who are *not* deniers or skeptics are railing against the political deception that the “climate specialists”… so to speak… are engaging in. They are also saying that the research is based on too narrow of sciences to yield more definitive results.
All in all, the “consensus” isn’t such a consensus afterall when there is infighting amongst the Gore’believers themselves.
Noting to you there was additional info on another thread that I didn’t wish to duplicate here was “arrogant”?
If this is your threshhold for twisted knickers, you are the delicate poofster indeed.
I’m still dumbfounded how Turbo brags that his countrymen are so much easily led by such charlatans than us Yanks are. As though this is a good thing.
Wow. Poodles have nothing on him, except some remaining will to bark.
Honest “mate” we don’t care where the BS comes from, as it all stinks the same. Please continue to blindly defend the centre, as I still have a lot of reading and typing to do before I fully expose all of this, and the regulars here like to be entertained while waiting.
Thank you.
Yes PV, like the guy leaving the sushi restaurant, I wait with baited breath.
OK Turbo here’s three questions for you that are NEVER answered by the Global Warming cabal –
1.Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5 per cent since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period? If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?
2.Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20th century phase of global warming) were not unusual as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth’s history? If the warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by human CO2 emissions; and, in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?
3.Is it the case that all GCM computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990-2008, whereas in fact there were only eight years of warming were followed by ten years of stasis and cooling?
These questions are based, of course, on the data from CRU BEFORE we were certain the Gorebots were cooking the books.
They won’t answer those questions because CO2’s “greenhouse effects” are VERY non-linear, resembling more a logarithmic curve where large absolute increases in concentration produce ever diminishing effects. Since we are well off on the right side of that log curve now, CO2 effect is getting pretty close to about as bad as it can get. Even a doubling, tripling, or quadrupling from today’s levels would only produce very incremental changes anymore.
@PA
Well said sir. You are 100% correct. Hell, even if doubled the concentration would still only be 0.08% of the atmosphere. (*gasp weez choke, falls over*)
@Skooks
Let’s see if we can whet some of that appetite of yours with a little taste from the chef.
I call it: Cooked Data Made Pretty, in Light of a Counterview. (flambé optional)
My oh my, we have been busy bees haven’t we.
Firstly, it is the height of arrogance to tell a Brit how we use our language in the UK.
MH said “Turbo, you use a Google search result as evidence of whether FOIA, FIA or FOI is more prominent? Heaven help us if this is the extend of your evidentiary skills. Plus it also indicates you are clueless as to how the Google search engine works.”
Very amusing: you claimed that you knew how we say it from the media reports. Didn’t it occur to you that the current media reports might be influenced by the hacker’s name FOIA?
I had never heard any Brit use the term FOIA before the hack. If you look at the hacked e-mails they mostly refer to FOI.
It is also arrogant to assume that I would need your data.
Now if you guys have had enough of the ritual pissing contest, we can have a civilised discussion…
I note that you guys are prepared to attack Hansen. He is not NASA, so you’re still being more respectful of your own institutions than mine. I also note that he hasn’t been flooded by F(O)IA requests.
Now I mentioned an intelligence test above that no one responded to. Why not? Is it because you can’t or you won’t?
Just to show good faith on my part I’ll deal with Mr. Flashman’s questions.
Mr. Flashman asked:
1.Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5 per cent since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period? If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?
-Assuming you’re right about the CO2 increase and the global cooling (whch is a cherry pick, which I won’t go into now): the Earth’s climate is complex with many influences, there are natural causes of climate change and man made ones. In this question you are postulating that the only influence on temperature is CO2. Do you really believe that? If you do believe it, you are wrong. If you don’t believe it, why ask this question?
There are still things we don’t know about the climate and NASA has a good overview of them here: http://climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties/
2.Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20th century phase of global warming) were not unusual as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth’s history? If the warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by human CO2 emissions; and, in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?
– the rate and magnitude of GLOBAL warming is unprecedented. If you have a proof that it is not unprecedented please link to it.
3.Is it the case that all GCM computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990-2008, whereas in fact there were only eight years of warming were followed by ten years of stasis and cooling?
-No, the individual models show periods of cooling, warming and static temperature. They are climate models that are intended to show what the climate will look like in the future, so the short term forecast is not their aim. What you tend to see in, for example IPCC FAR, are the agregate projections. There’s a paper on this very subject here;
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL037810.shtml
Here’s a loose analogy e.g. I predict that England will win the World Cup in one year. Now suppose a whole bunch of us predict that England win. I might think that England beats Germany but loses against Monaco in the first round. Fred might think that we draw in both those matches but go on to win the Final. Even if we’re both wrong with the intermediate steps, we might both get the right final answer. And that is because we are aware of the natural superiority of our team, 😉 but can’t take into account things like bad refereeing, French manual skills, playing conditions etc.
So you could (if legal where you are) bet on England winning the final and complain to me if they don’t, but you can’t blame me if you bet and lose on other results.
Breaking news from the UK:
‘Hello, this is Sir Bufton Tufton MP, how can I help you’
‘Hi – I am calling to alert you to the fact that the the scientific basis for global warming is flawed and to demand the resignation of Professor Phil Jones, head of the CRU at UEA for manipulation of scientific data …’
‘Very odd, our Chief Scientific Advisor assures me the scientific case is solid, his predecessor described climate change as a bigger threat than terrorism. And that is an exceedingly serious allegation, what is your basis? ‘
‘He has admitted as much in an email, look …. “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”
‘I see the Professor has explained the meaning of this quote on the UEA website … http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRU-update … It seems perfectly innocuous to me …’
‘Well, he has deleted data rather than release it under the Freedom of Information Act’
‘Another very serious matter. What data was destroyed?’
‘Well, actually we don’t know. But he certainly wrote mails that we can make sound very much like he was going to delete some emails ….’
‘I see. Do you have the full record of the correspondence, is it possible there are others that provide more context and background…?
‘I don’t know’
‘Excuse me?’
‘Well we only have a selection of the mails ….’
‘I see. These mails, I am sure you are aware that under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 an email is classed as a literary work and anyone reproducing it without permission of the copyright owner, that is, the author is committing an offence? I assume you have received such permission from Professor Jones … ‘
‘Well, not exactly. We acquired the mails from an anonymous individual who removed them from the UEA server without authority …’
‘I see, look, would you mind awfully supplying your name and address, the police would like to have a word with you regarding an ongoing investigation. Just routine you understand …’
Pavan said “Well said sir. You are 100% correct. Hell, even if doubled the concentration would still only be 0.08% of the atmosphere. (*gasp weez choke, falls over*)”
Now in the UK and Europe we have been aware of AGW for a long time, it’s been on the syllabus at secondary schools since the earlier 1990’s so I can confidently say that a schoolkid over the age of 15 in the UK would take you to task for what you are trying to imply with that remark.
You see 99 % of the atmosphere has no significant Greenhouse effect: so although CO2 is about 380 parts per million of the atmosphere, when you take away the 990,000 ppm that are not Greenhouse gase, CO becomes 380 parts of 10,000. That’s 3.8%.
To be frank: if you’ve not even reached that level of understanding, then you haven’t delved very deeply into the subject.
3.8% isn’t much in absolute terms, but it does affect the balance. Think of two Sumo wrestlers (Er I think you call them Wal-Mart customers in the States 😉 ) on a see-saw (teeter-totter?) in balance. Give one of them a feather to hold and the balance is disrupted.
BTW it is true that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic as PA says above: that’s why climate sensitivity is commonly referred to as an equilibrium change of T°C/ doubling of CO2.
@ Turboblocke
Hansen is the face of NASA’s climate research. So I think that makes him NASA. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html
FOIA suits:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/libertarian-group-to-sue-administration-for-failing-to-disclose-global-warming-docs-.html
Michael Mann has refused FOIA requests saying that even though the research was 100% funded by taxpayer money, he considers it his intellectual property. That is 100% crap. If you work with government funds, everything you do is intellectual property of the people that paid for it.
That really isn’t the point though. If global warming or climate change or whatever name it gets this week is so important, why is the information that proves its existence so guarded. The answer is relatively simple. The only scientists that hide their data, are those that have something to hide. Most scientists want to share their discoveries and open them up for peer review. They believe in their work and the work product. These guys only believe in their agenda.
@Turbo
You see 99 % of the atmosphere has no significant Greenhouse effect: so although CO2 is about 380 parts per million of the atmosphere, when you take away the 990,000 ppm that are not Greenhouse gase, CO becomes 380 parts of 10,000. That’s 3.8%.
They’ve done a good job with you folks over there…But over here we like our percentages based on the whole, and our science based on data, thank you very much.
Try these two words in relation to Greenhouse effect: Water vapour.
Think real hard about it, and then come back to us. Please continue to enjoy your 1.67491 decades of brainwashing, as you seem so comfortable.
Until now, that is.
Far be it for me to determine what “gase” is, other than an obscure colloquialism, but I do hope my usage of the Queen’s English is up to your standards. One can never be haughty enough, I always say.
The boffo thing about being a neolithic barbarian dwelling here in the States, is that I care not one wit about your silly little laws. Whilst I do much appreciate the Magna Carta, that remains the extent of my gratitudinal outreach. After all good chap, self defense is a term that has lost quite a bit of it’s meaning in your parts, hasn’t it?
Please continue with your assumptions about us Americans.
Turbo: Take you sophistry to an actual climate site, where you will rightly get your clock cleaned.
Hint: this is not a climate debate site, it is examining the obvious, documented perfidy of science and scientists here in the 21st century. It’s a larger point, in case you didn’t notice.
@Turboblocke said: “Now in the UK and Europe we have been aware of AGW for a long time, it’s been on the syllabus at secondary schools since the earlier 1990’s “
Gee… so school kids are now the arbiters of what is or is not science? Considering how so many of them are fed nothing but AGW propaganda, they are in NO position to make objective judgements.
Thinking back to my own experience in the early 1990’s I wasn’t in secondary school, but I did work for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington where I began an early education on this topic. One of the first things I learned is that the science had become hopelessly corrupted by politics.
You need to stop parroting the warmer-speak you’ve been programmed with and start to look at this problem more objectively.
If that’s possible.
“Hint: this is not a climate debate site, it is examining the obvious, documented perfidy of science and scientists here in the 21st century. It’s a larger point, in case you didn’t notice.”
I was merely replying to Mr. Flashman’s questions: if you have a problem with him asking them, then I suggest you take it up with him.
Aqua: sorry mate but one FOIA request is nothing compared to the flood that CRU had at the instigation of McIntyre. And as I made clear: in the US the attacks are on the man, not the Institution. What problem do you have with Hansen anyway: is it something to do with the question I repeat below?
Ah Patvann you got me right in the keyboard: gase is a typo, it should have read gases.
And a gratuitous attack on my countrymens’ failure to kill each other too: “After all good chap, self defense is a term that has lost quite a bit of it’s meaning in your parts, hasn’t it?”
Still persisting with the pissing ritual are you? OK try this for size: here’s a term that has no meaning in the UK “medical bankruptcy” http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/2009/06/new_study_shows_medical_bills.html
Water vapour: a greenhouse gas too: now think on this: what happens if there is more CO2
in the regions where there is no water vapour. You’re being very inscrutable but I think all it hides is that you are still at “the atmosphere is a single layer” level. Man, that’s so 1940’s. If you really want a discussion you should state your case otherwise you sound like a grumpy wife: “What’s up dear? “Not telling” “Why not?” “If you loved me you would know.” etc
Now guys, you’re a spirited bunch, I’ll give you that but you’re still ducking the question: how come GISSTEMP shows a higher anomaly that the HADCRUT index which in turn is higher than UAH/RSS?
@ Turboblocke
Nope.
I have no idea what any of that means. I imagine I could read about it for a while and be able to answer, but that isn’t the issue I have with CRU, Mann or Hansen. My issue is what I stated before, which you are apparently ducking. Why hide the raw data if you have nothing to hide. Science is a process of work product and review. These people and institutions do not want a review. They want their agenda followed, period. Seriously, if I were a scientist and I discovered an asteroid that all my calculations showed it was headed right for earth, I would want everyone in my field to check my data. But, if I were working at CRU or NASA’s Goddard Institute, I would hide that data and tell everyone that the only way to avoid the impact of the asteroid was to stop driving cars and shut down all the coal plants. Right? Right!
@ Turbo said:
Water vapour: a greenhouse gas too: now think on this: what happens if there is more CO2
in the regions where there is no water vapour.
I’ll tell ya what…”mate”…You tell me where this mythical non-blue-sky place is, the percentage of water-vapour on the over-all greenhouse effect, and at what altitude (and temps) does CO2 have it’s effects. Include the IR (defined in microns) differing from H2O, and I’ll answer your silly straw-man question having nothing to do with this topic.
But please continue to underestimate me, my education, and my experience whilst you do so, as I am busy perusing my absconded documents showing that even the head of your most revered climate “research” group isn’t all that keen on doing any actual science pertaining to CO2.
P.S. I am aware of higher-altitude C13 studies
Aqua: my apologies for not answering your question. I have no idea what they were thinking. And from the e-mails I’m none the wiser.
However, what data is it that they actually hid? What these e-mails could show, and I use the word “could” advisably, is that they were fed up with being hasseled by McI and were being as bureaucratic and annoying as possible. If you have no evidence that data was destoyed or hidden, then you don’t have a crime. Or is the law different in the USA?
Duh Patvann: you’re the one who assumed I needed educating “To add to Mike’sA comment about driving factors of climate changes and temperatures, I’ve throw some related data for Turbo on another thread.”
I make no assumptions about your education or experience.
And you ask a strange question:”I’ll tell ya what…”mate”…You tell me where this mythical non-blue-sky place is, the percentage of water-vapour on the over-all greenhouse effect, and at what altitude (and temps) does CO2 have it’s effects. Include the IR (defined in microns) differing from H2O, and I’ll answer your silly straw-man question having nothing to do with this topic.”
Shirley you know that CO2 absorption is dependant on pressure, so your question requires an algorithm that takes into account change in pressure i.e. you can’t treat the atmosphere as a single uniform layer. As for the area where there is no water vapour: look up. It is indeed the non-blue sky place, the outer reaches of the atmosphere.
Here’s a taster of a paper that deals with the change in IR absorption : http://www.licor.com/env/PDF/co2_abs.pdf If you want to calculate it for yourself can access the MODTRAN program here: http://www.modtran.org/
Now please answer my question.
My my, not only a low threshhold for wedgies, but one can add pompous know-it-all to Turbo’s character. LOL Ya’ll patience with this one is admirable. Maybe the pompous know-it-all will figure out that the missing database being discussed is the original raw data as Roger Pielke Sr was discussing, the links to which I provided to the intellectually curious in my comment above.
Only the intellectually dishonest (ahem, Turbo, that would be your pompous, twisted knicker self) can continue to argue with CRU’s own admission that they do not have the raw data to provide, suggesting is was mysteriously lost or discarded on some old computer.
Right….
@Turboblocke said: “Now guys, you’re a spirited bunch, I’ll give you that but you’re still ducking the question: how come GISSTEMP shows a higher anomaly that the HADCRUT index which in turn is higher than UAH/RSS? “
That reminds me of a professor I had at Columbia University (Obama’s alma mater) who said “If you can’t put it in “cab driver” language you probably don’t know what you are talking about.”
Sorry Turbutt, but you won’t convince anyone here with an Alphabet soup of acronyms. I realize you have been pre-programmed to parrot this kind of B.S. but you’re not making an effective case.
What’s left of objective science on this issue is mirroring public opinion and running away so fast from the scaremongering fantasies you WARMERS spew that you have lost the debate.
Senator Imhof said it best:
“We won, you lost, get a life!”
@Turdo
First of all, stop calling me Shirley.
Short answer:
Because they measure different things differently.
Medium answer:
The 2 of these “devices” for temperature monitoring have different time-constraints and baselines. There also have different averaging correctors built into the software, thus smoothing things differently like heat-island effects and wind currents, especially over the oceans.
The third device is satellite data measuring inferred lower-troposphere temperature by directly measuring mid-troposphere and the lower stratosphere temps.
Long answer:
GISSTEMP: is a combination of directly read ocean and land thermometers baselined between 1951-1980. The distance gaps between them are non linear, and show pronounced extremes, including heat-island effects, and localized weather, thus it’s average anomaly will always be highest.
HadCRUT3: is measuring differences in temperatures over the ocean and land in a blended and smoothed 5-degree grid overlay matrix starting from 1850 to present. (The longest direct-measurement baseline we have.) The software (unreleased to anyone) has “correctors” built in to do the smoothing for heat-island effect, bad station-placement, and localized weather. To their credit, they’ve erred on the side of conservative, meaning it will show fewer extremes than GISSTEMP.
UAH/RSS: These are satellites measuring not the surface of the planet, but very high up in the atmosphere. Using software (freely available from the University of Alabama and NASA) it calculates the lower atmospheric temps, by directly measuring mid-to-high altitude temps, where it is presumed to show variances from month-to-month without having localized effects “polluting” the data-stream, (and because it’s “grid” of signal-accumulation is quite large and uniform across the planet, other than at the poles). Because of this, it’s measured anomalies are the smallest.
I have answered your straw-man question, and I have overlooked the fact that you have NOT answered what the percentage of the Greenhouse-effect is done by water vapour. I will give you ½ credit for copy-pasting a site, rather than detailing why CO2’s IR absorption not covered by water vapour is a negligible effect, even at high-altitudes, but what the heck.
Now maybe you can tell me what the hell any of this has to do with the topic at-hand.
I hereby pass on your spurious offer to “educate me further”, as I’m bored with you, and I’m busy.
Apologies Patvann: I mixed you up with MH.
Sorry MH, your comprehension skills seem to be lacking: Aqua was asking about “hidden” data, not lost data.
If you want to talk about how unlikely it is to have lost data: have you still got any working 5 inch floppy drives? Or maybe a punch card reader. I’m sure I’ve got a couple of data cassettes from the late 1970’s hanging around somewhere: Commodore Pet 64. There’s no way they are ever going to be read.
Michaels comment about the 9 inch drives that you quote above is contentious. He wasn’t there, so it is mere speculation, yet you believe it condemns Jones . Here’s another phrase you don’t hear much in the UK: lynch mob.
You seem to postulate evil intent: carelessness or just not needing the data anymore are more likely explanations. Why would they keep the raw data after homogenisation? Presumeably at the time they knew the sources and thought that they could get the data back from the sources if necessary. Some 20-30 years later that is not so easy.
And what would be the point of hiding this data anyway: CRU are responsible for about 2% of the data that makes up the global average temperature. What do you imagine it would reveal?
All this distraction from you is avoiding two issues: the question that I posed above and the increasing suspicion that this was a US inspired hack. Take a look on Google at the publications that say it’s an inside job. The US sites say it first and claim the timeline proves it, which is total BS. Such an obvious ploy.
@Turboblocke: Has anyone else noticed how Turdo ignores the insight and experience of a former EPA official?
I guess it’s easier to keep spouting acronym laden WARMER parrot speak than engage in an honest discussion.
Isn’t that the point of this post?
Thanks Patvann. Glad you got the Shirley reference 😉
The reason I asked that question is that there are 4 main indices used to show global temperature: Gisstemp, Hadcrut, RSS and UAH.
They are commonly used to show the temp anomaly relative to the baseline years. For GISs it’s 1951-1980, Hadcrut is 1961-1990 and the last two it’s 1979 -1998. As you should be aware the 1950’s were cooler than the 60’s which were cooler than the 70’s etc. That means that GISSTEMP will always show a greater anomaly than Hadcrut which will be greater than UAH/RSS because their baseline years were cooler
If you take the different basline years into account, there is no significant difference in tha anomalies:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.15/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.24/mean:12/plot/uah/mean:12/plot/rss/mean:12
and http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes for an alternative way of describing it.
Unfortunately, there is a popular website that pretends that Hansen and NASA fiddle the data to give a higher anomaly. They’ve even blamed it on the siting of the weather stations and UHI. They are so vocal that NOAA took a look at the weather stations. They compared the data from the ones that were declared OK by this popular website with all the stations in the network. Guess what they found: no significant difference. But what happened next: did the owner of the website apologise and admit he was wrong? No he carried on with duping volunteers into sending in pictures of weather stations.
So when someone thinks I need educating by pointing me to WUWT (see 13 above), I ask them the Gisstemp/hadcrut/UAH/RSS question, because their answer tells me all I need to know. And if that person tries to tell you that I’m not worth listening to and avoids the question, maybe it tells you something about them too.
Oy! OCH! Uff-DA! Reductio ad absurdum. Same old jabberwocky defending the indefensible.
“That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
Turbolocke a one person circular argument, a Master Baiter.
I haven’t the time, patience or inclination to continue this.
Some people are like Slinkies…They’re really good for nothing but, they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
I’m smilin’ as I’m leaving.
I’m guilty of feeding the troll.
Mea culpa.
@ Turbo
And yet you STILL avoid my easy-to answer question about water-vapour….
Crapping on those who might question methodology is the same sort of thing that leads to why people like me don’t lend much credence to Hadley and Co. Good science isn’t afraid to hear-out septics. Those guys control who gets published, keep out those who question, then crap on them for not being published…
And you sit there doing the same thing. M&M have brought many good questions to the fore, and internally Hadley finds itself smashing their own co-authors for not spinning the “corporate” response in a manner that suits them. It’s pathetic, and childish…and YES they hide and conflate data, even in cases where they don’t really need to!
Any station in a proscribed zone, is better than a “corrected” bad one. Period. It’s why China moved 50 of them per Hadley’s instruct, (after threatening lawsuits) so knock it off if you want to be taken seriously. What you conveniently avoid, is that many of those stations-in-question are quietly being moved, as many are around the world per discovery by the same site you ridicule.
Is not accuracy paramount to science? Does consistency matter?
If Hadley and M&M worked together would it not be beneficial for all? Not for some, as the evidence shows that Hadley and company reveled in the death of their own internal skeptic, and were overjoyed with the leaving of another, both accomplished climatologists with a record of accuracy.
Personally, I sought-out those who would disagree with my assumptions and hypothesi, as it made me better-informed and in the end, produced better results for my customers.
@Mike
Do not worry my friend, as your vindication is being crafted at this very moment. Your experience with the dregs and dross of government is reflected in almost everything in this mess. It’s so political and territorial, it’s revolting.
How the hell did you manage to live through that period without committing felonious assault?
Now be a good Mod and get my latest response to Turdo out of purgatory. 🙂
*My* comprehension is lacking? That’s rich…. LOL First of all, Aqua was not “asking” anything. He was stating that deliberately hiding data and making it unavailable was unethical.
Part of the data “hidden” is the raw database. Interesting that when those such as McIntyre or Pielke’s request the data, it’s “lost”, but when Aussie scientist, Warwick Hughes, requested the data, Phil Jones responded “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” I, of course, have provided links to the news sources in my comments, but you… of course… are in possession of all knowledge and need no education. Bwahahahahaha
All of which plays into Aqua’s generic comments that hiding data (or proclaiming it’s “lost” or “merged” into a new database) is basically immoral for science and indicative of deviant political behavior.
I spent a couple of decades in the film and sound business, and have been beta testing and working full time on computers since the early 80s, Turbo. [Added: also have been working with digital recording and storage media in that entire time, starting with Stockham’s Soundstream system from the late 70’s] No one lets an irreplaceable database simply die because storage media change with evolving technology. They painstakingly transfer it to a new medium, oh Mr. Brilliant. I’d say if they do so with with classic films on deteriorating celluloid, I’m quite certain that such earth destroying, apocalyptic data is also preserved.
So again I say, “Lost”? Or is that database “hidden”? You seem to be certain that they carelessly purged, lost integral database overnight and accuse me of conspiracy theories. The reason they *should* keep the database (and probably did) is because a “homogenized” version can be merged inaccurately. And, judging by all the email conversations we’re getting excerpts of now, probably was. So ditch the raw database, and no one can prove you’ve forever altered the data in a rigged base of information.
And we’re supposed to believe this because scientists couldn’t foresee the demise of 5″ floppies? By gawd, if they couldn’t see that in advance, they shouldn’t be in charge of deciding if man is destroying the planet.
All your postulating stems from your speculation that this is a US hack merely because you and your blokes/mates don’t personally call it FOIA. Damn thin, dude. Personally, I don’t care who was the *whistle blower*, or their nationality. The person dodging and diverting from the original subject at hand about the deliberate manipulation of data to advance an end theory is simply you.
You are just not worth playing games with, Turbo. You not only need instruction and education in humility, you also need some simple lessons in civility and manners. Nor are you worth an additional nanosecond of my time or consideration as a human being or commenter. I wash my hands of you… and I am unanimous in this.
@Turdo
You come here and diss on our Mata’s skills, and you’ve done busted wide open a big bag of serious hurt, boy.