|
|
Post by socold on Sept 9, 2010 1:47:24 GMT
There is a problem identified in the SST record. Jones has looked at this and understands the nature of the adjustment needed to correct it.
Wigley doesn't. He has got the impression that the adjustment will reduce the 1940s blip. Wigley fires off an email speculating about the maximum effect of such an adjustment.
Jones who knows the nature of the adjustment, says no it won't remove the blip, in fact it'll do the opposite, therefore voiding Wigley's speculation.
When Jones says "the adjustments won't reduce the 1940s blip" he's not talking about Wigley's proposed adjustment. He's talking about the adjustment that will actually be done. Wigley evidentally isn't the one making the adjustment as he isn't aware of it's nature. Jones seems to be the one who is going to be doing this adjustment, or at least he's more aware of what it will be.
If you think Wigley is the one that's going to make the adjustment and that he's actually planning it and asking Jones to check it then no wonder you think there's foul play in that email. But that isn't what's happening in that email, the roles are the otherway round.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 9, 2010 2:03:51 GMT
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Phil,
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.
[/i][/quote] Not much more needs saying. I don't see one word in there that supports your take. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 9, 2010 2:42:28 GMT
Let me explain then. First I'll show one of the sentences you highlighted, then the innocent interpretation:
"I think the adjustment you are planning will reduce the 1940s blip. Here are some speculations about the effect."
"I don't know how much the adjustments you are going to make will reduce the 1940s blip. Let me speculate about the consequences of it being 0.15 deg C"
"I might not know the size of the adjustment, but I can tell it won't be more than 0.15C because there's a land blip too. I am speculating about this largest possible adjustment"
"Anything more than 0.15 is not compatible with the things I have just mentioned. That's why I am speculating about a 0.15C adjustment (and not say a 0.2C adjustment) - just to be clear so you aren't confused where 0.15 came from"
"the blip is an unresolved problem so it's demise would represent a solution (solutions are good)"
"Let me continue"
"I am writing a report for EPRI which briefly touches upon attribution of early 20th century warming, so I'd apprecate any comments you or Ben might have about how the adjustment may influence this"
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 9, 2010 3:12:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 9, 2010 10:06:17 GMT
Jones does not point out Wigley is going to adjust anything. I am worried that you are drawing wrong conclusions from the emails. The drift of the conversation was unmistakeable. If two top oil executives were discussing pricing in an identical manner they would be in jail. There seems to be no question of the intent here Socold. If you have an alternative rationalization then present it. If not there is no need to split hairs. A jury just doesn't buy hairsplitting you need a more credible story instead. Icefisher, if you can get that you misunderstood, and it is Jones who is doing the adjustments, not Wigley, and that Wigley is asking questions about the meaning of the adjustments, I would add this: As hunter points out, these stolen emails have been selectively released. The criminals who selectively released them will have edited them to remove some of the context that might have suggested a more innocent interpretation. Without the context it looks to me like Jones is the scientist who is batting down a suggestion from Wigley that is likely based on poor information, and a suggestion that is *possibly* inappropriately attempting to formulate a story. The phrase "Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying" is sometimes used as a diplomatic way of softening a put-down. |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 9, 2010 10:46:43 GMT
As hunter points out, these stolen emails have been selectively released. The criminals who selectively released them will have edited them to remove some of the context that might have suggested a more innocent interpretation. OK, first off...the "criminals" only released information that was SUPPOSED to be available and had already been asked for. It is LITERALLY because of Jones and the others BREAKING THE LAW THEMSELVES that some "criminal" had to break the law. Second, since Mr. Jones admitted the emails were real...so you are clearly in denial. How pathetic is your position that you need to make this stuff up? |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 9, 2010 11:12:44 GMT
As hunter points out, these stolen emails have been selectively released. The criminals who selectively released them will have edited them to remove some of the context that might have suggested a more innocent interpretation. OK, first off...the "criminals" only released information that was SUPPOSED to be available and had already been asked for. It is LITERALLY because of Jones and the others BREAKING THE LAW THEMSELVES that some "criminal" had to break the law. Second, since Mr. Jones admitted the emails were real...so you are clearly in denial. How pathetic is your position that you need to make this stuff up? Emails of this type are not subject to FOIA or EIR requests. I did not say the emails are not real. I said the emails are selective. Any selectivity is likely to have been designed to look for negative spin, because the intention of the alleged criminals appears to be to discredit CRU. I don't see why you say I am in denial when I say that I accept that, without knowing the context, Wigley's email looks like it verges on inappropriate fishing for results. |
|
|
|
Post by jurinko on Sept 9, 2010 12:58:17 GMT
Which "warming from 1700"? We all know that warming started only recently and before, the world was one big Garden of Eden   /sarc offI have no better idea than this:    Ocean cycles on top, not much is needed. I do not believe sun activity is detectable in a single cycle or even more cycles, just their cumulative effect in decades. Look how the CET was dropping during the Maunder minimum in the beginning of record (3rd graph), like when you stop the flame bellow the pot. It was quite warm at the beginning of the minimum, just like today. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 9, 2010 15:40:51 GMT
OK, first off...the "criminals" only released information that was SUPPOSED to be available and had already been asked for. It is LITERALLY because of Jones and the others BREAKING THE LAW THEMSELVES that some "criminal" had to break the law. Second, since Mr. Jones admitted the emails were real...so you are clearly in denial. How pathetic is your position that you need to make this stuff up? Emails of this type are not subject to FOIA or EIR requests. I did not say the emails are not real. I said the emails are selective. Any selectivity is likely to have been designed to look for negative spin, because the intention of the alleged criminals appears to be to discredit CRU. I don't see why you say I am in denial when I say that I accept that, without knowing the context, Wigley's email looks like it verges on inappropriate fishing for results. Lets not forget that Wigley is the one that put Jones in his position, mentored him from the start of Jones career and ran CRU before Jones. But even if you don't care to question the ethics, which is fair in my opinion, one has to question the objectivity. The worst comment and most evidential of what is likely wrong with the temperature reconstructions is contained near the end of Wigley's email. "So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?" Bottom line is there is no objectivity regarding where people are looking for problems, namely if and only if it conflicts with their point of view. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 9, 2010 16:16:01 GMT
At most the claim would be that there is a desire to reduce various blips in the temperature record in order, perhaps, to better fit to models.
Because people accept that models may not correctly have all the forcings, particularly prior to the 1970s, I think a better explanation is that people focus on the blips because they cannot think of a physical reason. Partly there may be no physical cause for the blip, and partly the blip may not concur with other observations. In this case the issue is the divergence between the land and SST that is being looked at for 1940, and the lack of apparent physical cause is being looked at for 1910.
You may like to claim that blips are viewed as inconvenient because they suggest that the most recent warming spell is a blip, but this doesn't really hold up because a) current warming is a blip on top of a blip, and b) scientists really don't think that way - they insist on a cause for warming and dislike accepting arbitrary "cycles" without a known cause.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 9, 2010 16:33:27 GMT
You may like to claim that blips are viewed as inconvenient because they suggest that the most recent warming spell is a blip, but this doesn't really hold up because a) current warming is a blip on top of a blip, By the blip on a blip do you mean the part of the blip not removed in the modern record? and b) scientists really don't think that way - they insist on a cause for warming and dislike accepting arbitrary "cycles" without a known cause. What you are describing here is a character flaw. While it is good and healthy to hate ignorance; sweeping it under the carpet is a character flaw. Auditors would quickly get themselves in trouble with such an approach. Careful and complete disclosure is the route out of the morass for an auditor. Sweeping it under the carpet isn't an acceptable alternative.  |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 9, 2010 16:46:15 GMT
The point is that they refuse to "sweep it under the carpet" by citing "60 year cycles" or mystical PDO correlations. They want a *physical* explanation.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 9, 2010 17:16:21 GMT
The point is that they refuse to "sweep it under the carpet" by citing "60 year cycles" or mystical PDO correlations. They want a *physical* explanation. I think they went a bit beyond "want". Admitting one does not have an answer can be a bit much for some egos. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 9, 2010 17:35:41 GMT
In this case not having an answer means not being able to rule out catastrophic warming, or catastrophic ocean pH reduction, or catastrophic changes in precipitation patterns, at the hands of man.
I like how uncertainty has been completely distorted to mean no cause for alarm, when in actual fact uncertainty is the cornerstone of risk.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 10, 2010 3:16:06 GMT
In this case not having an answer means not being able to rule out catastrophic warming, or catastrophic ocean pH reduction, or catastrophic changes in precipitation patterns, at the hands of man. I like how uncertainty has been completely distorted to mean no cause for alarm, when in actual fact uncertainty is the cornerstone of risk. There is no evidence any of that is or can occur "at the hands of man". Such arrogance to think we can. The strong evidence of how we do influence our environment on local scales with land use change goes unnoticed because it doesn't fit the agenda. No, only by surrendering our freedom and wealth to the U.N. implementing draconian limits on our energy use (and hence our very lives) can save the planet. A trace gas we need to live and feeds plants is called "pollution". You bunch of morons. Which scenario would be more catastrophic? A few degrees warmer or a few degrees colder? What's your solution? Maybe eliminate technology and industry, ban modern agriculture, transportation.....heck, just ban electricity. Ban the ICE. Forget that, ban everything, ban MAN. Ban his freedom. Elect a King of the world to care and nurture his subjects, direct our every move, monitor our carbon footprint, punish us with taxes when we commit sin against Mother Earth, determine what and how much food we can eat, our mode of transportation, the number of children we can have. Yes, each person's "needs" should be rationed equally; no more rich, no more poor, no wants, everyone must be equally miserable. And so on and so forth. The Utopian dream of Greenies to convert the world to wind and solar, pedal generators, wave generators, squirrel power, whatever, is not going to happen no matter how much monopoly money thrown at it. Every country attempting to convert to "green" energy is failing and going bankrupt in the process. Nature doesn't need any help from man to change the climate. Read history socold. What changed the Sahara to a desert? Why is it greening today? There are numerous examples of this. History didn't begin in 1978, and it won't end by those of us striving to better our lives by using our knowledge to improve them, and that means using coal and oil. There is nothing else to replace them. NOTHING. Maybe there will be in the future, but I'm not willing to roll over and allow a small minority of pointy headed academics and their Socialist partners to run my life and steal my kid's future. I'm still wondering how my generation ever made it past age 10 with all the "uncertainty" we had to grow up with. Oh, the risks, the calamity. You want uncertainty? Go back to 1932 and live through the next 13 years. You want uncertainty? Find a job in 1933 to feed your family. Or how about seeing your son off to war knowing it may the last time you'll ever see him. How's that for uncertainty. Or watching your brother go off to Vietnam and while you're in elementary school, one day your parents come to pick you and inform you he was killed. Go back in time when living past 35 was above average, but at least they weren't trashing the planet with evil CO2 right? The world we have today, those that are free and live in capitalist systems, live in a cleaner world than even 100 years ago. Our air, water and food are cleaner. We live longer...much longer than our ancestors. And why is that? Can you figure it out? Damn it's hard not to get angry and lose my cool with the nonsense such as you posted. Which era would be better? That the CWP is somehow "unprecedented" is the biggest lie ever perpetrated on the public. A few degrees warmer, even several, is not going to end the world. History teaches us warmer is better, cold kills.  The AGW sirens going off for the last 20 years have all turned out to be false alarms; a hoax. Increased severe weather, more frequent intense hurricanes, tornadoes.....the list is endless. All wrong. All of it. Climate models are shown to be wrong over and over. The hockey stick is a fraud, right from the beginning. Hansen promotes "civil disobedience" i.e. breaking the law to further his agenda. He is a despicable individual and not to be trusted. That Al Gore, a certifiable lunatic, is his proverbial blood brother for the Cause should raise red flags, but that doesn't seem to a problem. The oceans aren't going to turn to pools of acid because we're using oil and coal. We couldn't do it if we tried. Further, now we find out studies claiming lower pH ocean water harm and/or kill shell fish were not using CO2, but acids such as hydrochloric acid for their "studies". Exactly the opposite occurred using CO2. I posted this information, did you read it? Ocean acidification is just another bogeyman. It's always something. I've never understood fatalists, and I'll never understand global warming hysterics; two peas in a pod. |
|
