November 27, 2009
|Professor Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit.|
• In one email, dated November 1999, Professor Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, wrote: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [the science journal] 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.” Defenders of Jones have ridiculously tried to pull a Clinton and say “that all depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is,” in reference to the use of the word “trick”, saying it simply refers to a “trick of the trade”, pretending not to notice this “trick” was used to “hide the decline” in “real temps” since 1961. If the Earth is warming, why does he need to hide any decline?
• In another email, Phil Jones calls the sudden death of prominent climate change skeptic John Daly “cheering news!”
• Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a lead author of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change, penned the following email discussing the BBC’s supposed turn around on climate change:
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
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.
• Tom Wigley, a senior scientist in the Climate and Global Dynamics Division at University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, wrote an email to Phil Jones in which he betrays knowledge of data that would discredit their theories on climate change, saying, “Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.”
• In another email, Phil Jones appears to be instructing fellow scientists to delete incriminating emails subject to FOIA requests:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
• John Overpeck, director of the Institute of the Environment at University of Arizona, in an email suggests that scientists are aware that their claim that 1998 was the warmest year on record is likely false:
I agree, that we don’t want to be seen as being too clever or defensive. Note however, that all the TAR said was “likely” the warmest in the last 1000 years. Our chapter and figs (including 6.10) make it clear that it is unlikely any multi-decadal period was as warm as the last 50 years. But, that said, I do feel your are right that our team would not have said what the TAR said about 1998, and thus, we should delete that second sentence.
• In another incriminating email, Phil Jones discusses his evident reluctance to hand over information, and suggests sending the requested information just as raw data, which would “annoy” those behind the FOI request:
Options appear to be:
Send them the data
Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.
Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.
• In this email, Michael Mann, Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State, conspires to muffle skepticism about his website Real Climate:
guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we put up the RC post. By now, you’ve probably read that nasty McIntyre thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don’t go there personally, but so I’m informed).
Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.
You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’get to use the RC comments as a megaphone…
• In another email, Jones admits he will delete data rather than comply with FOI requests to disclose data which would show the basis for their dire warnings about global warming:
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it!
• This email from Phil Jones shows that he was warned against deleted emails subject to FOI requests:
Haven’t got a reply from the FOI person here at UEA. So I’m not entirely confident the numbers are correct. One way of checking would be to look on CA, but I’m not doing that. I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails – unless this was ‘normal’ deleting to keep emails manageable! McIntyre hasn’t paid his £10, so nothing looks likely to happen re his Data Protection Act email.
Anyway requests have been of three types – observational data, paleo data and who made IPCC changes and why. Keith has got all the latter – and there have been at least 4. We made Susan aware of these – all came from David Holland. According to the FOI Commissioner’s Office, IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on, unless it has anything to do with our core business – and it doesn’t! I’m sounding like Sir Humphrey here!
• Jones seems to fear the Freedom of Information Acts, telling his colleagues, “I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !”
• Jones figured out how to circumvent those FOI requests:
Wei-Chyung and Tom,
The Climate Audit web site has a new thread on the Jones et al. (1990) paper, with lots of quotes from Keenan. So they may not be going to submit something to Albany. Well may be?!?
Just agreed to review a paper by Ren et al. for JGR. This refers to a paper on urbanization effects in China, which may be in press in J. Climate. I say ‘may be’ as Ren isn’t that clear about this in the text, references and responses to earlier reviews. Have requested JGR get a copy a copy of this in order to do the review.In the meantime attaching this paper by Ren et al. on urbanization at two sites in China.Nothing much else to say except:
1. Think I’ve managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit
2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are threads on it about Australian sites.
3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning) about the availability of the responses to reviewer’s at the various stages of the AR4 drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on paleo.
• And another from Jones, also regarding suppressing FOI requests:
When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief Librarian – who deals with appeals. The VC is also aware of what is going on.
• Apparently the FOI doesn’t apply to climate change skeptics who want to see where these quacks are getting their whacko theories from. Another email from Tom Wigley to Phil Jones conspires to minimize data to exaggerate a warming trend:
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 the land 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”.Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH—just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note – from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not)—but not really enough.So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.)This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.Tom.
• This email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann shows a conspiracy to keep skeptics Chris de Freitas and Roger Pielke out of the IPCC report:
The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
• In another email, Benjamin Santer, climate researcher at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and lead author of the IPCC, said, “Next time I see (CATO Institute climate change skeptic) Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.”
• Source: Austrailia Herald Sun