Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Log In to post a reply

81 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
jshell
333 posts

Re: Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Nov 21, 2009, 09:50
PMM wrote:
jshell wrote:
They're the only ones that have modelled as such


No they're not. A good place to find further information about this is Mark Lynas' book, Six degrees. It collates the research from hundreds of studies and models from all over the world. Hundreds of them.

jshell wrote:
and would never release their data for peer review.


Why do you say that? Here's a list of their publications: http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/search-all-publications As you can see, this list is full of peer review submissions.

So how does the FACT that they DO submit their research for peer review, and the FACT that the Tindall centre are not the only research body to be investigating climate change fir with the government's plans for green mega tax?



They DON'T release data and they are at the centre of the whole thing. I've spent the night trawling through a lot of the stuff, and this from Phil Jones at the UAE is utterly, utterly damning:

---------------
""Mike,

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 !""
------------------------

So, there is Phil Jones saying that he'd rather ditch data than let people see or review it. This is seriously fucked up!


Also this, where they're talking about manipulating temperatures within models to suit their own needs and hiding a warming 'blip':

""From: Tom Wigley [...]
To: Phil Jones [...]
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer [...]
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 theland 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."
-------------

What the fucking, fuck is going on here????
Topic Outline:

U-Know! Forum Index