Climategate II

Here is the full e-mail.

Hi Ricardo - good to hear from you. Thanks too for the interesting figure. I have some comments on this section (6.5.4) and also for the others' you're helping to lead.

Regarding 6.5.4 - I hope Dick and Keith will have jump in to help you lead, and I can too.
I think the hardest, yet most important part, is to boil the section down to 0.5 pages. In looking over your good outline, sent back on Oct. 17 (my delay is due to fatherdom just after this time), you cover ALOT. The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid what's included and what is left out. For the IPCC, we need to know what is relevant and useful for assessing recent and future climate change. Moreover, we have to
have solid data - not inconclusive information. My take:

ENSO - coral records sensitive to ENSO (e.g., Urban et al. and Cobb et al - attached) suggest ENSO has changed in response to past forcing change (Cobb et al - updated interp by mann et al - see recent email attachment) and recent climate change (Urban et al). Ditto for Indian Ocean - not sure if can connect to dipole - I could ask Julie Cole? NAO - lots of papers and what's the consensus? I'm not sure, but I think it is that we can't say for sure what has happend to the NAO - or AO for sure (Keith might no more - recent Ed Cook paper might be the key? - I'm not an expert here). Same thing for PDO (not an expert, but aren't their recons that don't agree - see cole et al for one- attached). In both these
cases, the recons don't always agree. Or do they say the NAO variability has stayed pretty constant?

Tropical Atlantic - Black et al 1999 (attached to prev email) also says 12year mode (no consensus if diapole is the correct name for what Chang first described - see ref in Black attached) has been constant for 800 years.

Annual modes - does paleo have anything definitive to say yet? I'm a coauthor on a soon to be submitted AO recon paper, but I'm not sure reviewers will go for it - nor does it match D'Arrigo's recent AO recon paper (can't find).

So, the trick is for you to lead us (Dick, Keith, me - maybe Julie - ENSO expert) to produce 0.5 pages of HIGHLY focused and relevant stuff. Can you take another crack at your outline and then tell us what you need? Thanks!

Regarding 6.5.9 - can you help Dan, Ramesh and others to make quick headway on this one - it's totally missing. Thanks!

Regarding 6.3.2.1 - Keith will need help, no doubt - particularly with a good S. Hemisphere perspective (he can override me on this, but since I'm contacting you...) thanks! What do we have for the southern hem? Southern S. America, New Zealand, Tasmania, ice core?

Regarding 6.3.2.2 - what's your opinion of where this section stands?

Thanks - hope you are enjoying summer - although Tucson never gets that cold!

Best, Peck

Grammatical and spelling anomalies high-lighted (by bolding).

I realize that this is only a casual message, but this kind of sloppiness in communication does not fill me with confidence about the accuracy of this man's scientific studies.

No, I haven't left off beating my wife.

Well maybe you should stop doing that.

Here is the full e-mail.

Hi Ricardo - good to hear from you. Thanks too for the interesting figure. I have some comments on this section (6.5.4) and also for the others' you're helping to lead.

Regarding 6.5.4 - I hope Dick and Keith will have jump in to help you lead, and I can too.
I think the hardest, yet most important part, is to boil the section down to 0.5 pages. In looking over your good outline, sent back on Oct. 17 (my delay is due to fatherdom just after this time), you cover ALOT. The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid what's included and what is left out. For the IPCC, we need to know what is relevant and useful for assessing recent and future climate change. Moreover, we have to
have solid data - not inconclusive information. My take:

ENSO - coral records sensitive to ENSO (e.g., Urban et al. and Cobb et al - attached) suggest ENSO has changed in response to past forcing change (Cobb et al - updated interp by mann et al - see recent email attachment) and recent climate change (Urban et al). Ditto for Indian Ocean - not sure if can connect to dipole - I could ask Julie Cole? NAO - lots of papers and what's the consensus? I'm not sure, but I think it is that we can't say for sure what has happend to the NAO - or AO for sure (Keith might no more - recent Ed Cook paper might be the key? - I'm not an expert here). Same thing for PDO (not an expert, but aren't their recons that don't agree - see cole et al for one- attached). In both these
cases, the recons don't always agree. Or do they say the NAO variability has stayed pretty constant?

Tropical Atlantic - Black et al 1999 (attached to prev email) also says 12year mode (no consensus if diapole is the correct name for what Chang first described - see ref in Black attached) has been constant for 800 years.

Annual modes - does paleo have anything definitive to say yet? I'm a coauthor on a soon to be submitted AO recon paper, but I'm not sure reviewers will go for it - nor does it match D'Arrigo's recent AO recon paper (can't find).

So, the trick is for you to lead us (Dick, Keith, me - maybe Julie - ENSO expert) to produce 0.5 pages of HIGHLY focused and relevant stuff. Can you take another crack at your outline and then tell us what you need? Thanks!

Regarding 6.5.9 - can you help Dan, Ramesh and others to make quick headway on this one - it's totally missing. Thanks!

Regarding 6.3.2.1 - Keith will need help, no doubt - particularly with a good S. Hemisphere perspective (he can override me on this, but since I'm contacting you...) thanks! What do we have for the southern hem? Southern S. America, New Zealand, Tasmania, ice core?

Regarding 6.3.2.2 - what's your opinion of where this section stands?

Thanks - hope you are enjoying summer - although Tucson never gets that cold!

Best, Peck

Grammatical and spelling anomalies high-lighted (by bolding).

I realize that this is only a casual message, but this kind of sloppiness in communication does not fill me with confidence about the accuracy of this man's scientific studies.

You are concerned about typos in an email but not about malicious misinterpretation in an op-ed?

you seem to be saying that posting at a forum where you're "out of step" with the majority view is itself trolling, no exception.

I'm pretty sure I said or implied that it goes to motivation. So it is not without exception -- though exceptions being rather rare.

Why do you presume that people who post minority opinions on forums for non-trolling motivation are "rather rare" compared to the outright trolls? On what do you base this claim?

What would be the motivation, for instance, of someone going to a chastity advocacy site and regaling the (factually correct) stories of his sexual conquests?

Could be several possible motivations, but are you trying to imply that this is a good, typical example of the manner in which people post minority opinions on forums?

I realize that this is only a casual message, but this kind of sloppiness in communication does not fill me with confidence about the accuracy of this man's scientific studies.

You are concerned about typos in an email but not about malicious misinterpretation in an op-ed?

Why would you make that assumption?

I could be one of those turtles-all-the-way-down types.

On what do you base this claim?

Observation.

What would be the motivation, for instance, of someone going to a chastity advocacy site and regaling the (factually correct) stories of his sexual conquests?

Could be several possible motivations, but are you trying to imply that this is a good, typical example of the manner in which people post minority opinions on forums?

A "good" example illustrates the principle. But even a "great" example is not proof of anything.

So I don't think we've gotten beyond the "good faith" test which is necessarily a subjective assessment. I don't like to over-lawyer my remarks, but unless I specifically claim objective infallibility where I am making judgements they are usually subjective.

I'm not disputing your prerogative to judge differently. I'm merely disputing that my judgement is objectively false on it's face.

They provide independent checks on the temperature feedback due to CO₂. About half of the difference in temperature between glacials and interglacials is due to the CO₂ feedback and the rest to albedo changes. The intial triggers are changes in insolation distribution rather than changes in average amount.

If that were true, then why did the treemometers suddenly stop working in the 50's and 60's? Just when the C02 levels started rising? I suppose you never heard of 'hide the decline'?

Huh! What has that got to do with the Last Glacial Maximum, which is what was used in the paper conncerned to estimate sensitivity? No one that I know of is using tree rings for temperature estimates that far back.

They provide independent checks on the temperature feedback due to CO₂. About half of the difference in temperature between glacials and interglacials is due to the CO₂ feedback and the rest to albedo changes. The intial triggers are changes in insolation distribution rather than changes in average amount.

If that were true, then why did the treemometers suddenly stop working in the 50's and 60's? Just when the C02 levels started rising? I suppose you never heard of 'hide the decline'?

Huh! What has that got to do with the Last Glacial Maximum, which is what was used in the paper conncerned to estimate sensitivity? No one that I know of is using tree rings for temperature estimates that far back.

You were replying to Narby concerning this Blog posting from Jeff ID

"Paleoclimates seem to be where they're hanging their hat recently, now that modern warming has apparently stopped, without explanation. Which, in a broader view, seems a bit odd, since there were no human caused CO2 spikes back in the day."

Paleoclimate – Rotten to the core

Posted by Jeff Id on November 26, 2011


Apparently the emails document the deletion of data from the paleo-reconstructions that fail to support their preconceived expectation of the Climate scientists of temperatures, retaining only data that matches what they expect to see. Furthermore, various proxies are weighted in a manner such that the most agreeable proxies get the greatest weight, the proxies that agree the least get the least weight, in creating the reconstructions. And some of the scientists at least privately express concern over this.

Shocking, if true.

So just how does the fact that CO2 levels lagged temperature changes by 800 years or so in the glacials and interglacials provide independent verification that CO2 changes drive temperature. And more important to the topic how do the falsified treemometers verify anything?

They provide independent checks on the temperature feedback due to CO₂. About half of the difference in temperature between glacials and interglacials is due to the CO₂ feedback and the rest to albedo changes. The intial triggers are changes in insolation distribution rather than changes in average amount.

If that were true, then why did the treemometers suddenly stop working in the 50's and 60's? Just when the C02 levels started rising? I suppose you never heard of 'hide the decline'?

Huh! What has that got to do with the Last Glacial Maximum, which is what was used in the paper conncerned to estimate sensitivity? No one that I know of is using tree rings for temperature estimates that far back.

You were replying to Narby concerning this Blog posting from Jeff ID

"Paleoclimates seem to be where they're hanging their hat recently, now that modern warming has apparently stopped, without explanation. Which, in a broader view, seems a bit odd, since there were no human caused CO2 spikes back in the day."

Paleoclimate – Rotten to the core

Posted by Jeff Id on November 26, 2011


Apparently the emails document the deletion of data from the paleo-reconstructions that fail to support their preconceived expectation of the Climate scientists of temperatures, retaining only data that matches what they expect to see. Furthermore, various proxies are weighted in a manner such that the most agreeable proxies get the greatest weight, the proxies that agree the least get the least weight, in creating the reconstructions. And some of the scientists at least privately express concern over this.

Shocking, if true.

So just how does the fact that CO2 levels lagged temperature changes by 800 years or so in the glacials and interglacials provide independent verification that CO2 changes drive temperature. And more important to the topic how do the falsified treemometers verify anything?

The paper being discussed was talking about temperatures during the Last Glacial Maximum. No one is using data from tree rings to estimate temperatures that far back and you should know it. Your introduction of tree rings was thus an irrelevance and merely serves to confuse things, You have evaded this point.

The reason for the lag between CO₂ levels and temperatures has been explained several times so why are you bringing out the same old rubbish? Once again, changes in CO₂ levels are an amplifying feedback in the glacial cycles and the swings would not be as large without them. As temperatures drop CO2 dissolves in the oceans and causes the temperatures to drop further. Since it takes about a thousand years for the oceans to overturn and most of the CO₂ is in the deep parts of the ocean the lag that you talk about is exactly what was expected. Try not to forget this again.

Suppression of climate debate is a disaster for science

Environment Minister Peter Kent has done us all a favour by stating the obvious: Canada has no intention of signing on to a new Kyoto deal. So long as, the world’s biggest emitters want nothing to do with it, we’d be crazy if we did. Mr. Kent also refuses to be guilted out by climate reparations, a loony and unworkable scheme to extort hundreds of billions of dollars from rich countries and send it all to countries such as China. Such candour from Ottawa is a refreshing change from the usual hypocrisy, which began the moment Jean Chrétien committed Canada to the first Kyoto Protocol back in 1998.

[snippity-snip-snip]

Instead of distancing themselves from the shenanigans, the broader climate-science community has treated the central figures in Climategate like persecuted heroes. That is a terrible mistake, because it erodes the credibility of the entire field. The suppression of legitimate debate is a catastrophe for climate science. It’s also a catastrophe for science, period.

A nice read.

Suppression of climate debate is a disaster for science

Environment Minister Peter Kent has done us all a favour by stating the obvious: Canada has no intention of signing on to a new Kyoto deal. So long as, the world’s biggest emitters want nothing to do with it, we’d be crazy if we did. Mr. Kent also refuses to be guilted out by climate reparations, a loony and unworkable scheme to extort hundreds of billions of dollars from rich countries and send it all to countries such as China. Such candour from Ottawa is a refreshing change from the usual hypocrisy, which began the moment Jean Chrétien committed Canada to the first Kyoto Protocol back in 1998.

[snippity-snip-snip]

Instead of distancing themselves from the shenanigans, the broader climate-science community has treated the central figures in Climategate like persecuted heroes. That is a terrible mistake, because it erodes the credibility of the entire field. The suppression of legitimate debate is a catastrophe for climate science. It’s also a catastrophe for science, period.

A nice read.

The Canadian PM nicely states my objections to the proposed "solutions" to global cooling warming climate change weather.

A fun read ...

Editorial: Global warming alarmism cooling

At U.N. climate conference, poorer nations still want to soak richer ones.

Another frantic effort to redistribute wealth from developed nations to developing nations is under way, this time in Durban, South Africa. The excuse is the same old, tiresome claim that socialism writ large is necessary to save the planet from global warming.

Fewer people are fooled every year the United Nations brings together representatives of about 190 nations hoping to profit from the shakedown. Just as claims of climate doom are wearing thin, so are arguments for separating you from your money.

Still true after all these years: Follow the money!

The reason for the lag between CO₂ levels and temperatures has been explained several times so why are you bringing out the same old rubbish? Once again, changes in CO₂ levels are an amplifying feedback in the glacial cycles and the swings would not be as large without them. As temperatures drop CO2 dissolves in the oceans and causes the temperatures to drop further. Since it takes about a thousand years for the oceans to overturn and most of the CO₂ is in the deep parts of the ocean the lag that you talk about is exactly what was expected.

According to your AGW theory CO2 is not a feedback it is the primary forcing. When you figure out whether CO2 is a forcing or a feedback get back to me.

Try not to forget this again.

Believe me I won't forget that you don't know the difference between a forcing and a feedback, or that you don't comprehend Jeff ID's blog.

More out-of-contxt, non peer-reviewed, denialist objections to the Science It's All About:

Climatologists Trade Tips on Destroying Evidence, Evangelizing Warming

The recent University of California, Berkley "BEST" study -- perhaps the most comprehensive climate change investigation to date -- was blasted by AGW proponents. They were upset that the study -- funded in part by the charity of a major oil entrepreneur -- highlighted the fact that temperatures had flat lined over the past decade, and were more upset still that the study suggested that other factors like sea currents could have driven the warming that occurred in the 1960s-1990s.

But newly reportedly leaked emails reveal that accusations of bias are perhaps a bit of projection. The new emails include discussions that sound as shocking or more so as the infamous "Climategate" emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU).

... and ...

In one email Professor Jones explains to researchers how to best hide their work to prevent anyone from being able to replicate it and find errors:

I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I've discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.

Of course Phil Jones and his supporters will likely claim that the emails were taken out of context of some larger more appropriate discussion. But as a researcher it's pretty damning to make comments that even would seem to imply that you were engaging in trying to suppress peer review of questionable data -- academic fraud.

They're saving the world. The accountability standards to which others are held do not apply to them. Their ends justify the means.

The reason for the lag between CO₂ levels and temperatures has been explained several times so why are you bringing out the same old rubbish? Once again, changes in CO₂ levels are an amplifying feedback in the glacial cycles and the swings would not be as large without them. As temperatures drop CO2 dissolves in the oceans and causes the temperatures to drop further. Since it takes about a thousand years for the oceans to overturn and most of the CO₂ is in the deep parts of the ocean the lag that you talk about is exactly what was expected.

According to your AGW theory CO2 is not a feedback it is the primary forcing. When you figure out whether CO2 is a forcing or a feedback get back to me.

Try not to forget this again.

Believe me I won't forget that you don't know the difference between a forcing and a feedback, or that you don't comprehend Jeff ID's blog.

No, you act as if you have no idea of what the difference is between a forcing and a feedback. The same mechanism can act as either depending on circumstances. This has been explained here multiple times. I don't know why it seems not to have sunk in with you.

Once again, if a change, not dependent on the temperature, brings about a temperature change then it is a forcing in that circumstance. If a temperature change brings about a change in a variable which in turn brings about further changes in the temperature then that variable is a feedback.

If in a glacial cycle insolation pattern and albedo changes bring about temperature changes which bring about the release or capture of CO₂ which further changes the temperature then the CO₂ is a feedback in that circumstance. If we put a huge bolus of CO₂ into the atmosphere for reasons that are not brought about by temperature changes then that CO2 will act as a forcing. If that causes temperature changes that bring about the release of CO₂ and CH₄ from permafrost then that released gas would be a feedback.

So, if it gets the ball rolling it is a forcing. If it responds to a rolling ball and changes the balls course it is a feedback. The same mechanism can act as both at the same time. Got it!

If in a glacial cycle insolation pattern and albedo changes bring about temperature changes which bring about the release or capture of CO₂ which further changes the temperature then the CO₂ is a feedback in that circumstance. If we put a huge bolus of CO₂ into the atmosphere for reasons that are not brought about by temperature changes then that CO2 will act as a forcing. If that causes temperature changes that bring about the release of CO₂ and CH₄ from permafrost then that released gas would be a feedback.

So, if it gets the ball rolling it is a forcing. If it responds to a rolling ball and changes the balls course it is a feedback. The same mechanism can act as both at the same time. Got it!

LOL You have no evidence, zip, zero, nada, that CO2 levels in the glacial cycle influenced the temperature at all. To claim that CO2 changes which lagged temperature changes by hundreds of years in the glacial cyclem changed the temperature is complete bullocks.

What it does show, is that CO2 follows temperature changes, which would make it neither a forcing or a feedback according to your strange definition. Why the gas is in the atmosphere, doesn't change it's physical properties. Maybe both you and Gore should take a introductory chemistry class.

So, if it gets the ball rolling it is a forcing. If it responds to a rolling ball and changes the balls course it is a feedback. The same mechanism can act as both at the same time. Got it!

LOL You have no evidence, zip, zero, nada, that CO2 levels in the glacial cycle influenced the temperature at all. To claim that CO2 changes which lagged temperature changes by hundreds of years in the glacial cyclem changed the temperature is complete bullocks.

What it does show, is that CO2 follows temperature changes, which would make it neither a forcing or a feedback according to your strange definition. Why the gas is in the atmosphere, doesn't change it's physical properties. Maybe both you and Gore should take a introductory chemistry class.

Every objection you raise can be explained and dealt with, given time.

In the meantime, there is no time! You must turn all of your industry off and begin subsistence farming with goats.

Try it! It's fun! (Or so I've heard.)

So, if it gets the ball rolling it is a forcing. If it responds to a rolling ball and changes the balls course it is a feedback. The same mechanism can act as both at the same time. Got it!

LOL You have no evidence, zip, zero, nada, that CO2 levels in the glacial cycle influenced the temperature at all. To claim that CO2 changes which lagged temperature changes by hundreds of years in the glacial cyclem changed the temperature is complete bullocks.

What it does show, is that CO2 follows temperature changes, which would make it neither a forcing or a feedback according to your strange definition. Why the gas is in the atmosphere, doesn't change it's physical properties. Maybe both you and Gore should take a introductory chemistry class.

Every objection you raise can be explained and dealt with, given time.

In the meantime, there is no time! You must turn all of your industry off and begin subsistence farming with goats.

Try it! It's fun! (Or so I've heard.)

It all depends on the goats.

It all depends on the goats.

Don't let the Swedes burn your goat, bro.

More out-of-contxt, non peer-reviewed, denialist objections to the Science It's All About:

Climatologists Trade Tips on Destroying Evidence, Evangelizing Warming

The recent University of California, Berkley "BEST" study -- perhaps the most comprehensive climate change investigation to date -- was blasted by AGW proponents. They were upset that the study -- funded in part by the charity of a major oil entrepreneur -- highlighted the fact that temperatures had flat lined over the past decade, and were more upset still that the study suggested that other factors like sea currents could have driven the warming that occurred in the 1960s-1990s.

But newly reportedly leaked emails reveal that accusations of bias are perhaps a bit of projection. The new emails include discussions that sound as shocking or more so as the infamous "Climategate" emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU).

I don't think that is what happened. The BEST data set shows similar trends to the other data sets. The denialists were upset over this. They have tried to spin it to claim that it shows that warming has stopped. They have tried to put the same spin on the other data sets. And they have been wrong in all cases. It is the denialists interpretation that is being objected to not the results of the study.

In one email Professor Jones explains to researchers how to best hide their work to prevent anyone from being able to replicate it and find errors:

I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I've discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.

Of course Phil Jones and his supporters will likely claim that the emails were taken out of context of some larger more appropriate discussion. But as a researcher it's pretty damning to make comments that even would seem to imply that you were engaging in trying to suppress peer review of questionable data -- academic fraud.

They're saving the world. The accountability standards to which others are held do not apply to them. Their ends justify the means.

This one was worse. Your source has outright lied to his readers about what Prof. Jones wrote. He has spliced together two completely separate emails and presented them as one. That is lying.

The first two sentences come from this email.

Dear Thomas,
I hope you are enjoying your new job! Apologies in advance
for upsetting your morning!
Below there is a link to Climate Audit and their new thread with another attempt to gain access to the CRU station temperature data. I wouldn't normally bother about this - but will deal with the FOI requests when they come. Despite WMO Resolution 40, I've signed agreements not to pass on some parts of the CRU land station data to third parties.
If you click on the link below and then on comments, look at # 17. This
refers to a number of appeals a Brit has made to the Information Commissioner
in the UK. You can see various UK Universities and MOHC listed. For UEA these
relate to who changed what and why in Ch 6 of AR4. We are dealing with these,
but I wanted to alert you to few sentences about Switzerland, your University
and AR5. Having been through numerous of these as a result of AR4, I suspect that someone will have a go at you at some point. What I think they might try later
is the same issue:
Who changed what and why in various chapters of AR5? and When drafts of chapters come for AR5, we can't review the chapter as we can't get access to the data, or, the authors can't refer to these papers as the data haven't been made available for audit. Neither of these is what I would call Environmental Information,as defined by the Aarhus Convention.
You might want to check with the IPCC Bureau. I've been told that IPCC is
above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5
would be to delete all emails at the end of the process. Hard to do, as not everybody will remember to do it.
I also suspect that as national measures to reduce emissions begin to affect people's lives, we are all going to get more of this. We can cope with op-ed pieces, but these FOI requests take time, as the whole process of how we all work has to be explained to FOI-responsible people at each institution.
Keep up the good work with AR5!
Cheers
Phil

The issue was inquiries about who changed what and why in AR5. He was talking about protecting the privacy of deliberations.

The other two sentences are from this email.

Dear All,
Here are a few other thoughts. From looking at Climate Audit every few days, these people are not doing what I would call academic research. Also from looking they will not stop with the data, but will continue to ask for the original unadjusted data (which we don't have) and then move onto the software used to produce the gridded datasets (the ones we do release).
CRU is considered by the climate community as a data centre, but we don't have any resources to undertake this work. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get - and has to be well hidden. I've discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data. We are currently trying to do some more work with other datasets, which will get released (as gridded datasets) through the British Atmospheric Data Centre (BADC). This will involve more than just station temperature data. Perhaps we should consider setting up something like this agreement below
http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/data/surface/met ... ement.html
I just want these orchestrated requests to stop. I also don't want to give away years of hard effort within CRU. Many of the agreements were made in the late 1980s and early 1990s and I don't have copies to hand. I also don't want to waste my time looking for them. Even if I were to find them all, it is likely that the people we dealt with are no longer in the same positions. These requests over the last 2.5 years have wasted much time for me, others in CRU and for Dave and Michael. Some of you may not know, but the dataset has been sent by someone at the Met Office to McIntyre. The Met Office are trying to find out who did this. I've ascertained it most likely came from there, as I'm the only one who knows where the files are here.
See you all later.
Phil

Here Jones is complaining about how the work required to answer these inquiries comes out of grant resources that were intended for other purposes. These vexatious inquiries are interfering with the ability of a small unit like the one Jones headed to do their job. They don't have the resources to handle these inquiries without compromising what they are supposed to be doing.

Gummy, I'm sure you did not know about the splicing. But there is no way that the writer of this article could be described as honest. This is a perfect example of quote mining.

This one was worse. Your source has outright lied to his readers about what Prof. Jones wrote. He has spliced together two completely separate emails and presented them as one. That is lying.

It seems the contagion of Taqqiya has spread from the creationists.

If in a glacial cycle insolation pattern and albedo changes bring about temperature changes which bring about the release or capture of CO₂ which further changes the temperature then the CO₂ is a feedback in that circumstance. If we put a huge bolus of CO₂ into the atmosphere for reasons that are not brought about by temperature changes then that CO2 will act as a forcing. If that causes temperature changes that bring about the release of CO₂ and CH₄ from permafrost then that released gas would be a feedback.

So, if it gets the ball rolling it is a forcing. If it responds to a rolling ball and changes the balls course it is a feedback. The same mechanism can act as both at the same time. Got it!

LOL You have no evidence, zip, zero, nada, that CO2 levels in the glacial cycle influenced the temperature at all. To claim that CO2 changes which lagged temperature changes by hundreds of years in the glacial cyclem changed the temperature is complete bullocks.

What it does show, is that CO2 follows temperature changes, which would make it neither a forcing or a feedback according to your strange definition. Why the gas is in the atmosphere, doesn't change it's physical properties. Maybe both you and Gore should take a introductory chemistry class.

It's not my definitions of forcing or feedback but those that are used in the climate science field. It is a good idea to adhere to consistent definitions. It makes communication so much easier. You have never explained what you meant by either term.

How do we know how much the CO₂ feedback contributed to the cooling during glacials? Well we know how much of the Earth was covered by glaciers. We know what the vegetation changes were. Thus we know the what the albedo changes of the surface were. We know the changes in insolation patterns. The albedo changes and insolation pattern changes would lead to predictable temperature drops. The temperature dropped more than that so there had to be other things as well. There were known other possible feedbacks, namely dust from the greater aridity and CO₂ reductions. Use the data from this to estimate the CO₂ sensitivity. The estimates that you get agree with those derived otherwise.

And if there is a delay in CO₂ being captured by the ocean then there would be the observed lag in concentrations. If you don't understand this then I have to conclude that you are trying not to understand it because it would mean giving up an argument.

It all depends on the goats.

Don't let the Swedes burn your goat, bro.

This one was worse. Your source has outright lied to his readers about what Prof. Jones wrote. He has spliced together two completely separate emails and presented them as one. That is lying.

It seems the contagion of Taqqiya has spread from the creationists.

No, its alright to do this in this case.

When you're trying to save the world economy from destruction by the "climate change zealots" any lie can be safely overlooked as a necessary evil.

This one was worse. Your source has outright lied to his readers about what Prof. Jones wrote. He has spliced together two completely separate emails and presented them as one. That is lying.

It seems the contagion of Taqqiya has spread from the creationists.

No, its alright to do this in this case.

When you're trying to save the world economy from destruction by the "climate change zealots" any lie can be safely overlooked as a necessary evil.

Okay, you're lying when you say this, right?

You're attempting to melt down my little computer brain, but there's got to be some logic in there somewhere. I'll get it sorted out.