Esto es vergonzoso. No debería haber ocurrido. Si alguien duda de los datos, se hacen más pruebas y se cotejan, si es posible. ¿Donde quedo el método científico?. Los mails, puede que lleven dudas, opiniones personales, etc, pero lo importante son la parte pública del científico, las publicaciones y las conferencias. Pero ya está hecho y tal vez se aclaren cosas. ¿Habeis visto si hay algo que realmente indique manipulación?. Son acusaciones muy serias. Si despues de todo esto, no sale nada, lo excépticos van a quedar muy mal.
Es muy fuerte lo que ha pasado.
Pero también es fuertecillo que halla sobre estos temas cuestiones relevantes planteadas y sin respuesta desde hace años por los protagonistas de estos mails:
https://foro.tiempo.com/climatologia/reconstrucciones+climaticas+hockey+stick+etc-t92633.0.html;msg2208294#msg2208294Dicen que hay cientos o miles de mails, lectura para mucho tiempo. Y también series de datos y documentos.
Los mails yo no creo que vayan a permitir probar una manipulación consciente y organizada, pero sí que parece que esta gente tendría bastante claro cuál debe ser el resultado de sus investigaciones, que tendrían unas ideas políticas que consideran útil ese resultado, y que la transparencia en los datos no les gustaría mucho.
Algunas citas que circulan por ahí (
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/ ---
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7806#comments http://www.anelegantchaos.org ):
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
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.
(966015630.txt)
"It is possible to add the instrumental series on from about 1980 (Mike
sought of did this in his Nature article to say 1998 was the warmest of
the millennium - and I did something similar in Rev. Geophys.) but there
is no way Singer can say the proxy data doesn't record the last 20 years
of warming, as we don't have enough of the proxy series after about 1980"
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use
this to our advantage to get the series updated !
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS 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 !
‘”Options appear to be:
1. Send them the data
2. 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.
3. 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.”‘
From: “Michael E. M”
……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….
1054757526.txt
Phil,
It is distressing to read that American Stinker item. But Keith
does seem to have got himself into a mess. As I pointed out in
emails, Yamal is insignificant. And you say that (contrary to
what M&M say) Yamal is *not* used in MBH, etc. So these facts
alone are enough to shoot down M&M is a few sentences (which
surely is the only way to go — complex and wordy responses
will be counter productive).
But, more generally, (even if it *is* irrelevant) how does Keith
explain the McIntyre plot that compares Yamal-12 with Yamal-all? And
how does he explain the apparent “selection” of the less well-replicated
chronology rather that the later (better replicated) chronology?
Of course, I don’t know how often Yamal-12 has really been used in
recent, post-1995, work. I suspect from what you say it is much less
often that M&M say — but where did they get their information? I
presume they went thru papers to see if Yamal was cited, a pretty foolproof method ifyou ask me. Perhaps these things can be explained clearly and concisely — but Iam not sure Keith is able to do this as he is too close to the issue and probably quite pissed of.
And the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that
affects both you and Keith (and Mann). Yes, there are reasons — but
many *good* scientists appear to be unsympathetic to these. The
trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something,
and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is
being hidden.
I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this.
I’d be willing to check over anything he puts together.
Tom.
Prof. Phil J
Climatic Research Unit …
John,
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/
This went up last night about 5pm. There is a lot to read at various levels. If you get
time just the top level is necessary. There is also a bit from Tim Osborn showing that
Yamal was used in 3 of the 12 millennial reconstructions used in Ch 6.
Also McIntyre had the Yamal data in Feb 2004 – although he seems to have forgotten this.
Keith succeeding in being very restrained in his response. McIntyre knew what he was doing when he replaced some of the trees with those from another site.
Cheers
Phil
Dear Tas,
Thanks for the email. Steve McIntyre hasn’t contacted me directly about Law Dome
(yet), nor about any of
the series used in the 1998 Holocene paper or the 2003 GRL one with Mike. I suspect (hope)
that he won’t. I
had some emails with him a few years ago when he wanted to get all the station temperature
data we use here
in CRU. At that time, I hid behind the fact that some of the data had been received from
individuals and not
directly from Met Services through the Global Telecommunications Service (GTS) or through
GCOS.
All:
I received my first hate mail this AM, which helped me to realize that I shouldn’t be wasting time reading the blogs.
Regarding the “upside down man”, as Nick’s plot shows, when flipped, the Korttajarvi series has little impact on the overall reconstructions. Also, the series was not included in the calibration. Nonetheless, it’s unfortunate that I flipped the Korttajarvi data. We used the density data as the temperature proxy, as recommended to me by Antii Ojala (co-author of the original work). It’s weakly inversely related to organic matter content. I should have used the inverse of density as the temperature proxy. I probably got confused by the fact that the 20th century shows very high density values and I inadvertently equated that directly with temperature.
This is new territory for me, but not acknowledging an error might come back to bite us. I suggest that we nip it in the bud and write a brief update showing the corrected composite (Nick’s graph) and post it to RealClimate. Do you all agree?
…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…”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
Excerpt: “Can you delete any emails you may have had with [xxxxx] re AR4? … Can you also email [xxxxx] and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.”
I’m having a dispute with the new editor of Weather. I’ve complained
about him to the RMS Chief Exec. If I don’t get him to back down, I won’t
be sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I’ll be resigning from the RMS. The paper is about London and its UHI!
Cheers
Phil
At 16:48 19/03/2009, you wrote:
Thanks, Phil. The stuff on the website is awful. I’m really sorry you have to deal with
that kind of crap.
If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available – raw data PLUS
results from all intermediate calculations – I will not submit any further papers to RMS
journals.
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.
Cheers,
Ben
#1047388489
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
#1047390562
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”
“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
#1051156418
“This second case gets to the crux of the matter. I suspect that deFreitas deliberately chose other referees who are members of the skeptics camp. I also suspect that he has done this on other occasions. How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by an unscrupulous editor to ensure that ‘anti-greenhouse’ science can get through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas, Soon, and so on)…. deFreitas is such a poor scientist that he may simply disappear. I saw some work from his PhD, and it was awful (Pat Michaels’ PhD is at the same level).”
#1051190249
“Note that I am copying this view only to Mike Hulme and Phil Jones. Mike’s idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work — must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so the above approach might remove that hurdle too.”
email 1120593115.txt
Now to your email. I have seen the latest Mears and Wentz paper (to Science), but am not reviewing it, thank goodness. I am reviewing a couple of papers on extremes, so that I can refer to them in the chapter for AR4. Somewhat circular, but I kept to my usual standards.
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!
Cheers
Phil
"I also believe some of the series that make up the Chinese record are dubious or obscure , but the same is true of other records Mann and Jones have used (e.g. how do you handle a series in New Zealand that has a -0.25 correlation?) . Further serious problems are still (see my and Tim's Science comment on the Mann 1999 paper) lurking with the correction applied to the Western US tree-ring PC amplitude series used (and shown in Figure 2). There are problems (and limitations ) with ALL series used."
Gene/Caspar,
Good to see these two out. Wahl/Ammann doesn't appear to be in CC's
online first, but comes up if you search.
You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it hasn't
changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006!
Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today.
Ammann/Wahl - try and change the Received date!
Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with
819 Respuestas
244540 Vistas