Nov 20

As the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit’s (CRU) apparently hacked files have spread throughout the blogosphere, I downloaded all 160-some MB of the e-mails and documents, and started to clicking away randomly.  I stumbled across this e-mail from Kevin Trenberth who was an IPCC lead author.  The subject of the day seems to be how to explain the lack of warming for the past decade or so.  Trenberth wrote his e-mail just last month from an unseasonably cold Boulder, Colorado, and the e-mail was sent to one or more of the following: Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Stephen Schneider, and James Hansen, among others.

This is from the e-mail file #1255553034:

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu>

To: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov>

Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate

Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:43:54 -0600

Cc: Michael Mann <mann@meteo.psu.edu>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@ucar.edu>, Stephen H Schneider <shs@stanford.edu>, Myles Allen <allen@atm.ox.ac.uk>, peter stott <peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk>, “Philip D. Jones” <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>, Benjamin Santer <santer1@llnl.gov>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov>, Jim Hansen <jhansen@giss.nasa.gov>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@Princeton.EDU>

<x-flowed>

Gavin,

I just think that you need to be up front with uncertainties

and the possibility of compensating errors.

Tom.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Gavin Schmidt wrote:

> Tom, with respect to the difference between the models and the data, the

> fundamental issue on short time scales is the magnitude of the internal

> variability. Using the full CMIP3 ensemble at least has multiple

> individual realisations of that internal variability and so is much more

> suited to a comparison with a short period of observations. MAGICC is

> great at the longer time scale, but its neglect of unforced variability

> does not make it useful for these kinds of comparison.

>

> The kind of things we are hearing “no model showed a cooling”, the “data

> is outside the range of the models” need to be addressed directly.

>

> Gavin

>

> On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 18:06, Michael Mann wrote:

>> Hi Tom,

>>

>> thanks for the comments. well, ok. but this is the full CMIP3

>> ensemble, so at least the plot is sampling the range of choices

>> regarding if and how indirect effects are represented, what the cloud

>> radiative feedback & sensitivity is, etc. across the modeling

>> community. I’m not saying that these things necessarily cancel out

>> (after all, there is an interesting and perhaps somewhat disturbing

>> compensation between indirect aerosol forcing and sensitivity across

>> the CMIP3 models that defies the assumption of independence), but if

>> showing the full spread from CMIP3 is deceptive, its hard to imagine

>> what sort of comparison wouldn’t be deceptive (your point re MAGICC

>> notwithstanding),

>>

>> perhaps Gavin has some further comments on this (it is his plot after

>> all),

>>

>> mike

>>

>> On Oct 14, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Tom Wigley wrote:

>>> Mike,

>>>

>>> The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical

>>> runs with PCM look as though they match observations — but the

>>> match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low

>>> climate sensitivity — compensating errors. In my (perhaps too

>>> harsh)

>>> view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model

>>> results by individual authors and by IPCC. This is why I still use

>>> results from MAGICC to compare with observed temperatures. At least

>>> here I can assess how sensitive matches are to sensitivity and

>>> forcing assumptions/uncertainties.

>>>

>>> Tom.

>>>

>>> +++++++++++++++++++

>>>

>>> Michael Mann wrote:

>>>> thanks Tom,

>>>> I’ve taken the liberty of attaching a figure that Gavin put

>>>> together the other day (its an update from a similar figure he

>>>> prepared for an earlier RealClimate post. see:

>>>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/). It is indeed worth a thousand words, and drives home Tom’s point below. We’re planning on doing a post on this shortly, but would be nice to see the Sep. HadCRU numbers first,

>>>> mike

>>>> On Oct 14, 2009, at 3:01 AM, Tom Wigley wrote:

>>>>> Dear all,

>>>>> At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the

>>>>> recent

>>>>> lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to

>>>>> look at

>>>>> the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic

>>>>> trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second

>>>>> is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the

>>>>> observed data.

>>>>> Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The

>>>>> second

>>>>> method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.

>>>>> These sums complement Kevin’s energy work.

>>>>> Kevin says … “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”. I

>>>>> do not

>>>>> agree with this.

>>>>> Tom.

>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++

>>>>> Kevin Trenberth wrote:

>>>>>> Hi all

>>>>>> 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.

>>>>>> This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game

>>>>>> was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below

>>>>>> freezing weather).

>>>>>> Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change

>>>>>> planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. /Current Opinion in

>>>>>> Environmental Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27,

>>>>>> doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]

>>>>>> <http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.pdf> (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)

>>>>>> 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.

>>>>>> That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People

>>>>>> like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly

>>>>>> correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the

>>>>>> change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The

>>>>>> PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO

>>>>>> index became positive in September for first time since Sept

>>>>>> 2007. see

>>>>>> http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.ppt

>>>>>> Kevin

>>>>>> Michael Mann wrote:

>>>>>>> extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on

>>>>>>> BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard

>>>>>>> Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I

>>>>>>> can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met

>>>>>>> Office.

>>>>>>> We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile

>>>>>>> it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say

>>>>>>> about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?

>>>>>>> mike

>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote:

>>>>>>>> Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural

>>>>>>>> variability and signal to noise and sampling errors to

>>>>>>>> this new “IPCC Lead Author” from the BBC? As we enter an

>>>>>>>> El Nino year and as soon, as the sunspots get over their

>>>>>>>> temporary–presumed–vacation worth a few tenths of a Watt

>>>>>>>> per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be

>>>>>>>> another dramatic upward spike like 1992-2000. I heard

>>>>>>>> someone–Mike Schlesinger maybe??–was willing to bet alot

>>>>>>>> of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the

>>>>>>>> past 10 years of global mean temperature trend stasis

>>>>>>>> still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000

>>>>>>>> year record and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in

>>>>>>>> big retreat?? Some of you observational folks probably do

>>>>>>>> need to straighten this out as my student suggests below.

>>>>>>>> Such “fun”, Cheers, Steve

>>>>>>>> Stephen H. Schneider

>>>>>>>> Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary

>>>>>>>> Environmental Studies,

>>>>>>>> Professor, Department of Biology and

>>>>>>>> Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment

>>>>>>>> Mailing address:

>>>>>>>> Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building – MC 4205

>>>>>>>> 473 Via Ortega

>>>>>>>> Ph: 650 725 9978

>>>>>>>> F: 650 725 4387

>>>>>>>> Websites: climatechange.net

>>>>>>>> patientfromhell.org

>>>>>>>> —– Forwarded Message —–

>>>>>>>> From: “Narasimha D. Rao” <ndrao@stanford.edu

>>>>>>>> <mailto:ndrao@stanford.edu>>

>>>>>>>> To: “Stephen H Schneider” <shs@stanford.edu

>>>>>>>> <mailto:shs@stanford.edu>>

>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00

>>>>>>>> US/Canada Pacific

>>>>>>>> Subject: BBC U-turn on climate

>>>>>>>> Steve,

>>>>>>>> You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBCÿs

>>>>>>>> reporter on climate change, on Friday wrote that thereÿs

>>>>>>>> been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations

>>>>>>>> will force cooling for the next 20-30 years. It is not

>>>>>>>> outrageously biased in presentation as are other skepticsÿ

>>>>>>>> views.

>>>>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

>>>>>>>> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on-climate-change/

>>>>>>>> BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside

>>>>>>>> the US.

>>>>>>>> Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from

>>>>>>>> a scientist?

>>>>>>>> Narasimha

>>>>>>>> ——————————-

>>>>>>>> PhD Candidate,

>>>>>>>> Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and

>>>>>>>> Resources (E-IPER)

>>>>>>>> Stanford University

>>>>>>>> Tel: 415-812-7560

>>>>>>> –

>>>>>>> Michael E. Mann

>>>>>>> Professor

>>>>>>> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

>>>>>>> Department of Meteorology Phone: (814)

>>>>>>> 863-4075

>>>>>>> 503 Walker Building FAX:

>>>>>>> (814) 865-3663

>>>>>>> The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu

>>>>>>> <mailto:mann@psu.edu>

>>>>>>> University Park, PA 16802-5013

>>>>>>> website: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html

>>>>>>> <http://www.meteo.psu.edu/%7Emann/Mann/index.html>

>>>>>>> “Dire Predictions” book site:

>>>>>>> http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

>>>>>> –

>>>>>> ****************

>>>>>> Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu

>>>>>> <mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu>

>>>>>> Climate Analysis Section,

>>>>>> www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html

>>>>>> <http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html>

>>>>>> NCAR

>>>>>> P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318

>>>>>> Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)

>>>>>> Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305

>>>>> <Wigley-RecentTemps.doc>

>>>> –

>>>> Michael E. Mann

>>>> Professor

>>>> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

>>>> Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075

>>>> 503 Walker Building FAX: (814)

>>>> 865-3663

….

No, the authenticity of these files has not been proven. When I first read them, I was skeptical. But, having examined just a small portion of the hundreds (or thousands) of files, I’ve come to the conclusion that they simply could not be forgeries. If it’s a forgery, it’s one on an epic scale. Time will tell.

12 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share

33 Responses to “From the hacked CRU files: IPCC lead author’s private admission: ‘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.’”

  1. Orson says:

    THIS looks like evidence for several things.

    First, the Trenberth email indicates fear of losing control. Panic, dare I say?

    Others emails are summarized by commenter (but frequent one)_ Steve Mosher this way:
    “you get to see somebody with the name of phil jones say that he would rather destroy the CRU data than release it to McIntyre.
And lots lots more. including how to obstruct or evade FOIA requests. and guess who funded the collection of cores at Yamal.. and transferred money into a personal account in Russia
And you get to see what they really say behind the curtain..
you get to see how they “shape” the news, how they struggled between telling the truth and making policy makers happy.
you get to see what they say about Idso and pat micheals, you
get to read how they want to take us out into a dark alley, it’s stunning all very stunning. You get to watch somebody named phil jones say that John daly’s death is good news.. or words to that effect.”

    It could be straight from Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear.”
    It supports Richard Lindzen’s argument that the field of climate science is corrupt.

    Prediction: when the Pubbies regain control of Congress, an investigation for 2011 will be on the agenda. These ‘scientists’ (in so far as Americans like Trenberth are exposed) will be in their cross-hairs.

    As Ayn Rand wrote, “government science” is a contradiction in terms.

       0 likes

    • Klockarman says:

      And this is just the tip of the iceberg. I was just randomly clicking on a few files and found this one. There is much, much, much more.

      Thanks for reading the blog.

         0 likes

  2. Matt says:

    I think I can help them with their question. Hint: To account for the lack of warming check out a star approximately 9.3 *10^7 miles from earth. That’s a good start. Also, maybe think about water vapor.

       0 likes

  3. [...] Gore Lied: From the hacked Hadley CRU files: IPCC lead author’s private admission: ‘The fact is that we can… [...]

       0 likes

  4. [...] the hacked emails – Lead IPCC researcher states – “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that ….” Climate Change, Emissions, Europe, Marketplace Informationclimate, Hadley [...]

       0 likes

  5. [...] Examination of the files seems to reveal the dissatisfaction with the researchers who acknowledge that the globe is actually cooling: From the hacked Hadley CRU files: IPCC lead author’s private admission: “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.” AlGoreLied.com [...]

       0 likes

  6. [...] of the alarmist cause' There 'are just so many small details that were just impossible to fake' Claim: UN IPCC Lead Author Admits: 'The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the… 'If legit, this apparently devastating series of revelations will be very hard for the media to [...]

       0 likes

  7. Kaleem says:

    Index of all e-mails with search feature

    http://www.anelegantchaos.org/

    Down load of all emails

    http://www.filedropper.com/foi2009

       0 likes

  8. kevin kin says:

    Great news. Hopefully the main stream media will start doing their job now and reporting this.

       0 likes

  9. [...] — and an author of IPCC fourth assessment — was quoted in a late-’09 email [1255553034.txt]: The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty [...]

       0 likes

  10. [...] author of the UN’s IPCC Fourth Assessment (AR4) — was quoted in a late-’09 email [1255553034.txt]: The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty [...]

       0 likes

  11. [...] appear to be conversations between scientists at the unit discussing how to cook climate numbers to advance the global warming political agenda. There’s also a pretty nasty comment about the death of one of the first notable climate [...]

       0 likes

    • Simpleton says:

      Except that it does not appear to be that. I know that you want it to be that, but it isn’t.

      Yup, you have people talking nastily about the deniers, which pales in comparison to the rancor by the deniers.

      You would think that thousands of emails later, if you had a conspiracy, you’d be able to point it out.

      Instead all you have people crying persecution because someone called someone else names.

         0 likes

  12. Simpleton says:

    Which says what exactly?

    That it is frustrating.

    It is no different that a DA saying “It is a travesty that we could not get a conviction on OJ despite having DNA evidence!”

       0 likes

  13. [...]        Gore Lied: From the hacked Hadley CRU files: IPCC lead author’s private admission: ‘The fact is that we can… [...]

       0 likes

  14. [...] – and it shall ever remain a feather in my skeptic hat that I discovered and broke two of the most damning quotes discovered in the e-mails. But, I digress. As I said, the e-mails were the [...]

       0 likes

  15. Mike says:

    They are trying to figure out how best to respond to a misleading BBC story and how to present to the general public the difference between long term trends and short term observations. I do not see anything fishy in this. But I can see how people without advanced training in math and science would might misread these letters.

       0 likes

  16. Barnes B. says:

    The boat is indeed being missed here, as quotes are cherry picked out of context and explanations to statements, within the emails themselves are left out. I give an example at my website here: http://www.environmentmemo.com/2009/11/28/climate-change-emails-headlines-ignore-full-content-and-truth/

       0 likes

    • Klockarman says:

      “..quotes are cherry picked out of context…”???

      Huh. I posted the entire e-mail thread on this post, just so that it would have the entire context. So, you’re saying???

         0 likes

      • John says:

        Indeed it is good to see the whole thread to put it in context – and clearly the line quoted is then tempered by the comments that follow it about new dapata coming in. Also when put in contex with the earlier comment (” Meanwhile the

        >>>>>>>> past 10 years of global mean temperature trend stasis

        >>>>>>>> still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000

        >>>>>>>> year record and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in

        >>>>>>>> big retreat??”

        and the notes about taking out el nino, ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data, which then shows a clear underlying warming are very interesting.

        Point is at no time does anyone say “we lied” are that “there is no warming”.

           0 likes

        • Klockarman says:

          First you say: “The boat is indeed being missed here, as quotes are cherry picked out of context and explanations to statements, within the emails themselves are left out.”

          So, I point out to you that I included the entire e-mail thread, and now you say: “Indeed it is good to see the whole thread to put it in context”.

          Pardon me, but I’m completely perplexed here. Which is it?

          Climategate has put you folks that want to use science as a political tool in a tough place these days, so I guess I can understand that you’re kind of grasping at straws here. By the way, the passage you quoted was not Trenberth whose quote was featured in the headline, but was Stanford’s Stephen Schneider, so Trenberth’s statement still stands.

          By the way, Schneider is a bit of a chronic alarmist. Here’s the video of his appearance on a 1978 episode of the Leonard Nimoy hosted show In Search Of..The Coming Ice Age… that I posted a few months back.

          http://algorelied.com/?p=2839

          If we do indeed get a Maunder-type Minimum like some are predicting (but not me), I wouldn’t be surprised if Schneider climbed back on that bandwagon of apocalyptic doom.

             0 likes

  17. [...] the most damning of all was this exchange between climate researchers in Britain and America. Kevin Trenberth, Head of the Climate Analysis [...]

       0 likes

  18. [...] the most damning of all was this exchange between climate researchers in Britain and America. Kevin Trenberth, Head of the Climate Analysis [...]

       0 likes

  19. chuck says:

    hey barnes b, this boat wasn’t missed. it’s sunk.

       0 likes

  20. Bruno says:

    I see the English and the Americans are at it again. First its the lies about Suddam Hussain and the chemical and biological wareheads, which they have not found, now they want to tell the world about Climate change. I think its such a shame that we hold these to countries in such high esteem only to find out they are the ones causing the biggest problems in this only world of ours.
    Who do we believe next…… Maybe the Muslims are right about USA and GB ….. makes you think doesn’t it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

       0 likes

  21. [...] written proof appeared in the form of a series of leaked emails from climatologists working around the world for the respected University of East Anglia Climate [...]

       0 likes

  22. [...] about is from Kevin Trenberth (head author of the 2007 IPCC document — AR4), who wrote in a 2009 email [i.e. not ten years ago], “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the [...]

       0 likes

Leave a Reply

preload preload preload