the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Their Words

Posted by Jeff Id on December 4, 2011

They call us skeptics, deniers, fossil fuel funded, contrarians, anti-science, all because we criticize the IPCC, the hockey stick plots, temperature record quality, biased peer review, and the general politicizing that climate science has undergone. Don’t take it from me though, Climategate II explains the same things in the words of the scientists themselves.

In this post, I’ve posted a large number of quotes from the emails and other online sources which I have been gradually gathering for several days now. The consensus duma will say they are out-of-context so if you question that, check the numbers or links next to the comments. It is not possible that they could ALL be out-of-context but there are many  statements from climate science which leave me wondering. This post is started out with a quote from noted scientist Dr. Roy Spencer’s blog and it continues on with quotes from the consensus. All of whom are actual climate scientists.

Be sure that there are many more quotes in these emails. I am only one person and the documentation takes time. If there are more to add to the list (there are) just quote the email number and a few sentences below. No need to copy the whole email. Those interested enough will look it up anyway. I didn’t cover the FOIA and peer review issues here but hope to add them to this list in the future.

The IPCC

From the organization statement: http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml

Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.

Roy Spencer -on his blog regarding the IPCC

Unfortunately, there is no way to “fix” the IPCC, and there never was. The reason is that its formation over 20 years ago was to support political and energy policy goals, not to search for scientific truth. I know this not only because one of the first IPCC directors told me so, but also because it is the way the IPCC leadership behaves. If you disagree with their interpretation of climate change, you are left out of the IPCC process. They ignore or fight against any evidence which does not support their policy-driven mission, even to the point of pressuring scientific journals not to publish papers which might hurt the IPCC’s efforts.

Hans VonStorch – Wall St Journal Climategate 1.0

What we can now see is a concerted effort to emphasize scientific results that are useful to a political agenda by blocking papers in the purportedly independent review process and skewing the assessments of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

#0714 Phil Jones – on finding authors for the IPCC AR4 report

Getting people we know and trust is vital – hence my comment about the tornadoes group.

#4755 Johnathan Overpeck – Picking what goes into IPCC AR4

 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.

#3066 Peter Thorne – IPCC Zero’th order draft

I note that my box on the lapse rates was completely and utterly ignored which may explain to some extent my reaction, but I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

#2009 Keith Briffa – writing zero’th order draft of paleo IPCC AR4 chapter.

I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!

#0170 Jones – Looking for hurricane paper to be included in the IPCC AR4

Seems that this potential Nature paper may be worth citing, if it does say that GW is having an effect on TC activity.

#1922 Johnathan Overpeck – on the message for the IPCC paleo section

Need to convince readers that there really has been an increase in knowledge – more evidence. What is it?

#3066 Tim Carter – on what is going into the IPCC. Written to IPCC authors because of amazing THC claims.

Regarding the phrase ‘IPCC position’? Would it be wise to check that McCarthy /Watson have the same understanding as we do.

[and the reply]

[TC] You could try, but it has been tricky getting anyone to make statements about anything. It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.

#4133 David Rind – IPCC review. Doing what is necessary for the IPCC

Synthesis and Implications for Climate change combine ideas from the different time periods – it gives paleoclimate studies more of an unified feel, as if it were a real discipline rather than a bunch of people doing their own time-period thing. That’s necessary for IPCC, and necessary for the outside community to see as well. So I would vote for keeping the general order, but eliminating the overlap and inconsistencies in ways that seem most reasonable.

#0419 Mike Hulme –

I am increasingly unconvinced by the majority of climate impact studies – including some of those I am involved in – and feel we are not really giving the right message to our audiences.

 Douglas Maraun Die Klimazweibel blog

Second, I agree with von Storch, that some climate scientists are alarmist, and even more, some climate scientists are politicised and give scientific results a certain spin to push their political agenda. Yet, as I experienced CRU, the institute was far from being alarmist or streamlined in any way.

NAS panel review of hockeysticks prompted by McIntyre and McKitrick.

#1104 -Heinz Wanner – on reporting his NAS panel critique of Mann to the media.

I just refused to give an exclusive interview to SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science.

#1656 Douglas Maraun – on how to react to skeptics.

How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think, that “our” reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann’s work were not especially honest.

#3234 Richard Alley

Taking the recent instrumental record and the tree-ring record and joining them yields a dramatic picture, with rather high confidence that recent times are anomalously warm. Taking strictly the tree-ring record and omitting the instrumental record yields a less-dramatic picture and a lower confidence that the recent temperatures are anomalous.

Paleoclimate and hide the decline

#0300

Bo Christiansen – On Hockey stick reconstructions

All methods strongly underestimates the amplitude of low-frequency variability and trends. This means that it is almost impossible to conclude from reconstruction studies that the present period is warmer than any period in the reconstructed period.

Ed Cook #3253

the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit about <100 year extra-tropical NH temperature variability (at least as far as we believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know fuck-all about what the >100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know fuck-all).

#4133 David Rind – IPCC review.

what Mike Mann continually fails to understand, and no amount of references will solve, is that there is practically no reliable tropical data for most of the time period, and without knowing the tropical sensitivity, we have no way of knowing how cold (or warm)the globe actually got.

[and later]

Unsatisfying, perhaps, since people will want to know whether 1200 AD was warmer than today, but if the data doesn’t exist, the question can’t yet be answered. A good topic for needed future work.

Rob Wilson – 1583

The palaeo-world has become a much more complex place in the last 10 years and with all the different calibration methods, data processing methods, proxy interpretations – any method that incorporates all forms of uncertainty and error will undoubtedly result in reconstructions with wider error bars than we currently have. These many be more honest, but may not be too helpful for model comparison attribution studies. We need to be careful with the wording I think.

#3234 Richard Alley – on NAS panel and divergence

records, or some other records such as Rosanne’s new ones, show “divergence”, then I believe it casts doubt on the use of joined tree-ring/instrumental records, and I don’t believe that I have yet heard why this interpretation is wrong.

#4758 Tim Osborne – Criticizing other people for doing the same thing

Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data ‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it! If we write the Holocene forum article then we’ll have to be critical or our paper as well as Crowley’s!

#0497 – Phil Jones UEA – Scientists don’t know the magnitude of past warming.

Even though the tree-ring chronologies used have robust rbar statistics for the whole 1000 years ( ie they lose nothing because core numbers stay high throughout), they have lost low frequency because of standardization. We’ve all tried with RCS/very stiff splines/hardly any detrending to keep this to a minimum, but until we know it is minimal it is still worth mentioning.

#0886 Jan Esper on his own reconstruction – also hidden decline

And the curve will also show that the IPCC curve needs to be improved according to missing long-term declining trends/signals, which were removed (by dendrochronologists!) before Mann merged the local records together.

#4005 Tim Osborne

Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were

#2346 Tim Osborne

Also, we set all post-1960 values to missing in the MXD data set (due to decline), and the method will infill these, estimating them from the real temperatures – another way of “correcting” for the decline, though may be not defensible!

#3234 Richard Alley

Unless the “divergence problem” can be confidently ascribed to some cause that was not active a millennium ago, then the comparison between tree rings from a millennium ago and instrumental records from the last decades does not seem to be justified, and the confidence level in the anomalous nature of the recent warmth is lowered.

I think the best way to sum up all of this is a quote from a guest post at tAV and DieKlimazweibel by Bo Christiansen:

Where does all this lead us? It is very likely that the NH mean temperature has shown much larger past variability than caught by previous reconstructions. We cannot from these reconstructions conclude that the previous 50-year period has been unique in the context of the last 500-1000 years.

Of course we all know that the IPCC reports differently.


72 Responses to “Their Words”

  1. M. Simon said

    “The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”

    http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm

    In case it has change I found it here:

    http://climatechangeskeptic.blogspot.com/2007/05/ipcc-not-neutral-or-unbiased.html

  2. M. Simon said

    changed

  3. AJStrata said

    Jeff,

    I need your eyes on this. I think I found a smoking gun

    Exposed: How Briffa/IPCC Produced False Error/Uncertainty In Hockey Stick: http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/17701

    Cheers, AJStrata

  4. Ruhroh said

    Jeff;
    This is a conspicuously valuable activity.

    Your collation of like-minded folks saying similar things (sorted by topic) will be important for spreading the story beyond the folks who already ‘get it’.

    It reminds me of that folklore of some character who swallowed the whole ocean,
    and then ‘vomited’ it back up, but with the extra heroic tasking of sorting the vomitus.

    Those ‘quick-reaction’ (within 1 day) dismissals of Tranche II are absurd on their face.

    How do you do so much?
    I think your day job is keeping you in touch with the real people in the real world.

    Remember to have fun with your youngest, at the same time as saving the world for him…
    Best
    RR

  5. AJStrata: I don’t know if this methodology was noted before or not. However, I do know that at CA there was a discussion as to how wierd the CI’s were and that it couldn’t be just 1 or 2 sigma, that something else was going on. Everybody knew that the CI’s were strange and too small. Now, if that was the methdology used, I think it is yet another smaking gun on the confirmation bias and purposed spin that was imparted, yet denied, by the IPCC.

  6. Jeff Id said

    AJStrata,

    It looks like a good example to me. I’m not sure about ‘smoking gun’ but that is ONLY because these emails are very clear about their meaning. Of course Hide the Decline was very clear as well.

    I put the quotes up here because I was looking for pithy style remarks which were not out-of-context that captured the meaning of the story.

    I will add that email to my list of things to discuss. I’m trying to be somewhat organized in my collection and am interested in anyone who can help collect more. They deserve what they get for this and the media isn’t paying enough attention.

  7. Steve McIntyre said

    Nice collection.

  8. AJStrata said

    Jeff,

    Thanks for looking at it. Sadly, shoddy work rarely is pithy! (Mine included). BTW, nice collection of quotes.

  9. Matthew W said

    Kudos for all the work on this !!!
    Don’t neglect your youngn’ !!

    (second Christmas?)

  10. Jeff,
    I think the reason this email release isn’t getting any traction is shown by your collection. Most of the things you’ve quoted only sound sinister if viewed through the eye of great prior suspicion. That’s present here in abundance, but not among the people you might be trying to convince. Otherwise they wouldn’t need convincing.

    Take your PJ quote:
    “Getting people we know and trust is vital – hence my comment about the tornadoes group.”
    They have a job to be done. Getting people you know and trust sounds like perfectly good advice. Would you seek people you don’t know and don’t trust?

    And if you look for context – what did he say about the tornadoes group? He only spoke of one – “no idea how good he is”. A perfectly normal consideration.

    Or this one:
    “Seems that this potential Nature paper may be worth citing, if it does say that GW is having an effect on TC activity.”
    Now the context is that Emanuel had told him that there was a coming paper (his own) in which he did show that. So it’s not a case of PJ saying we’ll cite it only if it says the right thing. He knows what it’s going to say. He’s just agreeing that it’s relevant.

  11. Jeff Id said

    Nick,

    A lot of media has picked this up. Not so much as last time but the media is heavily biased and if you recall, they were basically forced by circumstancs to pick it up last time. The scientists say the process is biased, then they state how it is biased. It is up to us to read.

    “Second, I agree with von Storch, that some climate scientists are alarmist, and even more, some climate scientists are politicised and give scientific results a certain spin to push their political agenda.”

  12. Carrick said

    …and to push their grant funding.

  13. 40 shades said

    Jeff,

    Great summary.

    One thing I would say is that I suggest you explai all abbreviations in brackets.

    A novive to the climate debate will not know what TC stands for. (I take it that it is Tropical Cyclone)

    40 Shades

  14. Brian H said

    Nick;
    Since when do scientists have to “know” each other?
    And “trust” to do what? The clear implication, often made explicit, in context is “stick to the AGW message”.
    Like you do.

  15. Ruhroh said

    Hey Jeff;
    Your post is (appropriately) at the top of the sidebar at ace.mu.nu

    Very Nice,
    RR.

  16. #14
    There’s nothing special about scientists here. It’s the thought process anyone who needs to get a job doen goes through.

    “The clear implication, often made explicit…”
    That’s the issue – it is inference. You make it because you think the worst of climate scientists. That’s what is needed to make these quotes sound sinister. Most people lack it. The title of the post is “Their Words”. But it isn’t the words, it’s what you read into them.

  17. tallbloke said

    0890.txt

    ” The Lead Author
    of the Observations chapter seems to have already come to the
    conclusion that global warming has altered hurricane activity and has
    publicly stated so. This does not reflect the consensus within the
    hurricane research community.

    I am concerned that it may not be possible for the IPCC process
    to proceed objectively at this point, with regards to hurricane
    activity. ”

    – Chris Landsea –

  18. There will be no peace on Earth this holiday season unless world leaders awaken to reality and accept their total powerlessness over the forces of nature.

    [snip- not this one Oliver. thx]

  19. Jeff Id said

    Nick,

    ” You make it because you think the worst of climate scientists.”

    This is absolutely false. I don’t think the worst of even Phil Jones. I think they believe exactly in what they are doing. They believe that Soon and Baliunas should be ostracized and that the guy who disagreed at the NOAA should be fired. It is pretty clear that they are sorting their peers by who they want to succeed and who they don’t based on message – not science. I also think they are caught in a funding system which has self sorted the politically and scientifically most supportive people to the top of the pile. This includes a bunch of paleo guys who actually believe it might be ok to eliminate data if it makes the case. Then in other conversations you see thme saying, perhaps that isn’t really justifiable. Here’s a hint – it ain’t.

    It is a system of who you trust, who will support you and what message will we sell. It is NOT a system of bad people – although I do think their politics are dangerously ignorant. The idea that we should stop using fossil fuels because that helps is as impossible as stopping breathing.

  20. Jeff Id said

    Tallbloke,

    Thanks for that. This thread is also running at WUWT where others have left quotes. I’m going to keep expanding this list.

  21. Jeff,
    By “think the worst” I mean, impute the worst explanation. And this is happening throughout.

    You mentioned “Then in other conversations you see thme saying, perhaps that isn’t really justifiable. Here’s a hint – it ain’t. ” You may have been referring to

    “Also, we set all post-1960 values to missing in the MXD data set
    (due to decline), and the method will infill these, estimating them from the
    real temperatures – another way of “correcting” for the decline, though may be
    not defensible!”

    Now the reasonable interpretation of that is that he doesn’t think it is defensible, and so isn’t going to publish it. And there’s no evidence that he did – your general complaint is that post 1960 values were not shown. But if you look into context (and many of these quotes are indeed out of context), you will see at the start of the para that he’s describing a method for dealing with missing values generally:

    “We’re now using the MXD data set with their program and the Jones et al. data
    to see: (i) if the missing data from 1856-1960 in the Jones et al. data set
    can be filled in better using the MXD plus the non-missing temperatures
    compared to what can be achieved using just the non-missing temperatures. I
    expect that the MXD must add useful information (esp. pre-1900), but I’m not
    sure how to verify it!”

    A perfectly reasonable thing to investigate. And he points out at the end that this also has the effect of infilling post-1960. That’s not what they developed the method for, and it is in fact clear from the context that it isn’t meant for publication. The whole thing is experimental

  22. Jeff Id said

    NIck,

    Your second paragraph merely reinforces the first. You really beleive that MXD plus non-missing temperatures would be a proper way to represent a MXD reconstruction? He’s saying gee- let’s average em up instead of keeping the original. How many ways are there to say ‘hide the decline’.

    This quote is absolutely not out of context. I simply put it up. As far as what was published, we know that they gave up and decided to hide the data in most cases by cutting it off. Had they not done that, the scribbles would have been interpreted completely differently.

    “many of these quotes are indeed out of context”

    I don’t agree with that either. If you give maximum deference to the scientists some of them can be interpreted in a better light but you can’t say the same thing for all of these quotes.

    Even if you give maximum deference, as your example attempts, you see that the reality is that they were looking for any way possible to hide the decline and present this data in the best light. They are doing this because they understand the paleoclimate field rests on this large dataset being an accurate representation of temperature. They know it isn’t but in order to keep doing tree temp records, they have to find a way to explain what happened while covering up the problems. They also have no defensible explanation for why divergence occurs and they realize that the principle of uniformitarianism has been violated. The only thing they can do if they don’t want to kill paleoclimate science, is to hide the decline and try to find better data or an explanation for the problem. In the meantime, if they simply had stated the problem openly their field would lose tremendous credibility. Funding would become more difficult and finding the field-saving answer in the face of dwindled funding would be impossible.

    My recommendation to dendros would be to stay away from temp reconstructions. They don’t work.

  23. Jeff, this is a useful list putting things together in themes. My version is here.

    Three little typos:
    4007 should be 4005.
    2347 should be 2346.
    In 4133, the writer is David Rind, not Overpeck.

    I think you missed the best bit of 4133. He goes on to say
    “Concerning the hockey stick (which took up probably 3/4 of the review pages!): what Mike Mann continually fails to understand, and no amount of references will solve, is that there is practically no reliable tropical data for most of the time period, and without knowing the tropical sensitivity, we have no way of knowing how cold (or warm) the globe actually got.”

    Also, there is a follow-up to 1922 (3456) where Overpeck, having got no satisfactory answer, tries to ask again – “what about being more specific (at least a little) about what the “subsequent evidence” is. Is there really anything new that gives us more confidence?”
    This relates to the false claim in IPCC AR4 ch 6, p 246, that “subsequent evidence has strengthened this conclusion”. In fact, as we now know, they knew it was ‘crap’.

  24. AMac said

    Nick Stokes —

    Here is a parallel that you may not welcome.

    You propose a wide variety of ideas and explanations on a wide variety of AGW-related topics. They range from well-thought-out and mathematically rigorous to pulled-from-a-hat. Or from a Monty Python skit.

    The thing your comments all share is that they defend the conduct of the scientist/advocates of the Mainstream consensus, and the correctness of the consensus itself.

    If I see a comment from, say, SteveF or Ryan Maue, I start with the presumption that it’s been written because that scientifically-literate person has thought about the subject, weighed the evidence and context, and presented their current views. I can’t know their conclusion until I read through it.

    I might agree or disagree; they might turn out to be right or wrong. But I’m surely reading the thinking of somebody who has demonstrated their expertise, and who regularly exercises good judgement.

    On a thread like this, when I see the byline “Nick Stokes” and read the first line, I already know how the comment ends. With a justification / excuse / rationalization for the conduct of Mainstream scientist-advocates. If there is evidence of misconduct, error, or poor judgement, I already know that you will ignore it / soft-pedal it / elide it / misstate it / divert attention from it. Your comments are nakedly partisan, in the service of the Mainstream and its leading lights.

    That’s not to say you are always or mostly wrong. Just that I have to get independent confirmation of any claim you make, before believing it.

    This is the same bind that leading scientist-advocates of the Mainstream AGW position have placed themselves in. I don’t know that their pronouncements on climate sensitivity or ocean heat or aerosols are wrong (they could well be right*). I do know that they’ve forfeited trust by their conduct.

    .

    * Paleotemperature reconstructions are different. In that area, it’s become clear to me that the Mainstream views are wrong.

  25. Frank K. said

    Jeff Id said
    December 5, 2011 at 9:18 am

    Nick, said…

    “many of these quotes are indeed out of context”

    We can read these e-mails for ourselves, Nick. And they most definitely are NOT out of context. As Jeff indicated, these people knew exactly what they were doing. And now, of course, we are all paying the price for their deeds (e.g. taxpayer-funded billion$ in useless and/or redundant climate “research”, and hypocritical U.N. sponsored climate conferences trying to extort even more money from the public.)

  26. Jeff Id said

    Thanks Paul.

  27. kim said

    Here is what Nick Stokes read into the words of these people, per his comment on 11/24 @ lucia’s ‘Son of Watergate thread: ‘scientists conscientiously and carefully performing their jobs’.

    Conscience is the key. Who could ask for anything more?
    =========

  28. Frank K. said

    kim said
    December 5, 2011 at 10:21 am

    Here is what Nick Stokes read into the words of these people, per his comment on 11/24 @ lucia’s ‘Son of Watergate thread: ‘scientists conscientiously and carefully performing their jobs’.

    You ARE kidding, right?


    con·sci·en·tious/ˌkänCHēˈenCHəs/
    Adjective:

    (of a person) Wishing to do what is right, esp. to do one’s work or duty well and thoroughly.

    Yep – that describes these climate scientists alright…

    I can think of a better adjective:


    ar·ro·gant/ˈarəgənt/
    Adjective:

    Having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one’s own importance or abilities.

  29. david said

    Or this one:Nick Stokes says,
    “Seems that this potential Nature paper may be worth citing, if it does say that GW is having an effect on TC activity.”
    Now the context is that Emanuel had told him that there was a coming paper (his own) in which he did show that. So it’s not a case of PJ saying we’ll cite it only if it says the right thing. He knows what it’s going to say. He’s just agreeing that it’s relevant.

    This does not appear logical Nick. He is clearly saying that it is only worth citing “if it” says “that GW is having an effect on TC activity”. The opposite is the clear language of the remark, “if it” said GW does NOT have an effect on TC activity it would not be worth citing. The writers knowledge of the details of the paper is irrelvant.

  30. david said

    Nick, could you place this one in context please,

    Ed Cook #3253

    the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit about 100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know fuck-all).

  31. Carrick said

    Nick is engaged in turd polishing again. Oh well. Different sports for different people.

  32. kim said

    Some dust and ashes,
    For Nick, a Faberge Egg.
    Conscience, perspective.
    ================

  33. Jeff Id said

    David got me. LOL.

  34. Frank K. said

    david said
    December 5, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    Wow, I guess climate scientists should get kudos for using “f*&^-all” as a noun in a proper sentence!

  35. tallbloke said

    #0484.txt

    from: David Rind
    subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] IPCC last 2000 years data
    to: REDACTED

    “The other sections concerned with the last (in this case ) 1000 years are:

    6.4.3.2 Model Evaluations of the last 1000 years
    This is a tough section to write, because there’s
    literally no way to conclude anything of
    substance. If forced with the “best guess”
    forcings, model responses are on the order of -1
    to -1.5″

    Nothing of substance? This might be the most realistic climate model result ever obtained!🙂

  36. Jeff,
    “In the meantime, if they simply had stated the problem openly their field would lose tremendous credibility.”
    They did state the problem openly. Major papers, prominently published, eg:
    Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes – a notable Nature paper, and
    Trees tell of past climates: but are they
    speaking less clearly today?
    .

    And Amac, yes, I know it is predictable that I’ll speak up when I think scientists are being misrepresented. And be shouted down. Carrick understandably wonders why I bother.

    And yes, Kim, I do believe that the emails show scientists conscientiously doing their jobs. You have 4000 emails here – and you focus on a few gotcha extracts. And they are extracted from a much greater number (117 mb). And with all that effort, there’s very little to show. This is a classic example. Osborn has a new method for infilling missing values. He describes carefully the purpose, what it is intended to achieve, where he is up to with verification etc. But all you focus on is where he makes a joke at the end about how it has the incidental effect of infilling the troublesome post-1960 period, but says that this is not a defensible approach for that problem. So dark remarks are made about using indefensible methods. But he’s clearly saying that you can’t do it that way, and he doesn’t intend to.

    And David, on the prejudiced reading,
    “The opposite is the clear language of the remark, “if it” said GW does NOT have an effect on TC activity it would not be worth citing. “
    is exactly the kind of thing I mean. That is your inference – it is not what he is saying. Emanuel has written to say, I’m co-writing a paper that says X. And Jones says, well if it says X we should cite it. That’s simply a statement that X is relevant. It’s perfectly consistent with the proposition that if it says X is disproved, we should also cite it. Now you’ll say, well, we know these people, don’t we. But it’s not there in “their words”.

    And, David, on the Cook, statement, please read it again, and say exactly what it is that Cook is saying that we don’t know. Carefully. And then check where in the literature people are claiming that we do.

  37. Jeff Id said

    “You have 4000 emails here – and you focus on a few gotcha extracts.”

    I would quote the whole mess but nobody would read.

    “And then check where in the literature people are claiming that we do.”

    Look no further than Mann 98,03,08,09,07 etc.

  38. “Look no further than Mann 98,03,08,09,07 etc.”

    Jeff,
    What does Mann say about “100 year variability” there?

  39. AMac said

    Nick Stokes #36 —

    > I know it is predictable that I’ll speak up when I think scientists are being misrepresented…

    Speaking of paleo recons, because that’s the piece I’m most familiar with: I’d happily join the fray on your side, if I saw strong papers that tackled the biggest issues that the non-specialists have highlighted. And if, once identified, the science changed in order to confront the unresolved problems.

    In that case, the emails wouldn’t mean much. Just chatter.

    However, the various bad-tasting themes of the emails seem often to presage similar bad-tasting elements in the literature.

    Very weak output like Mann08 and Mann09 are celebrated, then defended tooth-and-nail.

    Practitioners still don’t understand the critical importance of post hoc analysis, and other concepts.

    So I’m not sure I see the misrepresentation that’s so clear to you.

  40. Jeff Id said

    Nick,

    I like you but don’t have the time to be librarian.

    Our results extend previous conclusions that recent Northern Hemisphere surface temperature increases are likely anomalous in a long-term context. Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used.

    Does that satisfy you? It is from the 08 abstract – I do have the whole paper if you are interested.

  41. Jeff,
    My point is that Cook is not saying we know nothing about temperatures, but about “100-year variability”. Now I don’t know exactly what he means either, but I don’t think anything can be made of the quote without knowing what he meant by that.

  42. Jeff Id said

    “Now I don’t know exactly what he means either”

    I know exactly what he means. How come you don’t?

    He is talking about the GREATER than 100 year variance of the plots. Something which is completely unreliable in RCS and tree rings. He is making the obvious point that the reconstructions are high frequency wiggle matches which have no confirmed long term correlation or signal and RCS (and various other methods) have no ability to re-create it.

    In other words, all recons have little or nothing to do with the 1300 year temperature. We certainly can make no conclusions about century scale temps from these as Christiansen confirms. Yet that is exactly what is claimed.

  43. Jeff,
    Again, I think you are reading too much into it. The century time-scale variability issue seems to be well-published, eg
    Jones and Briffa, Proxy indicators of climate.
    “Taken together, the reconstructions for the two hemispheres show little coherence in century time-scale variability.”

    One can argue about its significance. But this email is not any kind of revelation.

  44. david said

    Nick Stokes says And David, on the prejudiced reading,
    “The opposite is the clear language of the remark, “if it” said GW does NOT have an effect on TC activity it would not be worth citing. “
    is exactly the kind of thing I mean. That is your inference – it is not what he is saying. Emanuel has written to say, I’m co-writing a paper that says X. And Jones says, well if it says X we should cite it. That’s simply a statement that X is relevant. It’s perfectly consistent with the proposition that if it says X is disproved, we should also cite it. Now you’ll say, well, we know these people, don’t we. But it’s not there in “their words”.

    Wow Nick really, we are not debating scripture, it is simply language. If a paper gomes to conclusion A (GW has an effect on TC activity) it is worth citing. If it comes to the opposite they try to get you fired for not being open minded. Please notice the word “if” in Jones statement. “Seems that this potential Nature paper may be worth citing, if it does say that GW is having an effect on TC activity.” He has not read the paper, he has only come to the conclusion that if it contains a message of a pro CAGW is what makes it worth citing. Their own actions in trying to excommunicate those with a different view make this obvious.Their actions speak louder then yu words.

  45. DeWitt Payne said

    Re: Nick Stokes (Dec 5 16:44),

    I don’t think anything can be made of the quote without knowing what he meant by that

    This is bordering on being willfully obtuse. If we don’t know what the > 100 year variability is, then the confidence limits on the reconstruction expand rapidly as you go further than 100 years into the past. The result is that there is no confidence at all in any estimate before 1600. Even the NRC report said that it was only plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. Which also means that it’s plausible that it wasn’t. In other words, we know with certainty that we know f#%k-all about NH temperature behavior before 1600.

    Btw, this is precisely the point of McIntyre and McKitrick, 2005.

  46. DeWitt,
    I see no evidence that the people who are circulating this quote share that understanding. As I said in #43, the version you describe has been previously discussed in the literature. Cook’s view may be stronger than most, but again, this email is not a revelation.

  47. Jeff Id said

    It is a revelation to the IPCC.

    I wonder why?

  48. Kenneth Fritsch said

    I think what we have here is a failure to realize who is/was speaking: the advocate or scientist. If you look at a lot of evidence presented by climate science and observe very closely what they say and sometimes what they do not say and then read between lines a little, I think you readily see that the scientist is far from certain about a good deal of evidence about past climate, and future, for that matter. The emails are an agglomeration of science and advocacy with more of the latter. My single major question I have stemming from the emails is: how much does the advocacy affect the science as it is practiced and as it is viewed by policy makers?

  49. diogenes said

    extraordinary

    “Nick Stokes said
    December 5, 2011 at 4:44 pm

    Jeff,
    My point is that Cook is not saying we know nothing about temperatures, but about “100-year variability”. Now I don’t know exactly what he means either, but I don’t think anything can be made of the quote without knowing what he meant by that.”

    It’s like eating pea soup with a fork…we can’t know what he meant without knowing what he meant…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Denison_Maurice

    Please refrain Nick…you are too intelligent to do this.

  50. #47 Jeff
    “It is a revelation to the IPCC. “

    From the AR4, Sec 6.4 – the expletives deleted version:

    “They indicate a greater range of variability on centennial time scales prior to the 20th century, and also suggest slightly cooler conditions during the 17th century than those portrayed in the Mann et al. (1998, 1999) series.”

    ” The considerable uncertainty associated with individual reconstructions (2-standard-error range at the multi-decadal time scale is of the order of ±0.5°C) is shown in several publications,”

    “Figure 6.10b illustrates how, when viewed together, the currently available reconstructions indicate generally greater variability in centennial time scale trends over the last 1 kyr than was apparent in the TAR.”

  51. #47 Jeff

    “It is a revelation to the IPCC. ”

    From the AR4, Sec 6.4 – the expletives deleted version:

    “They indicate a greater range of variability on centennial time scales prior to the 20th century, and also suggest slightly cooler conditions during the 17th century than those portrayed in the Mann et al. (1998, 1999) series.”

    ” The considerable uncertainty associated with individual reconstructions (2-standard-error range at the multi-decadal time scale is of the order of ±0.5°C) is shown in several publications,”

    “Figure 6.10b illustrates how, when viewed together, the currently available reconstructions indicate generally greater variability in centennial time scale trends over the last 1 kyr than was apparent in the TAR.”

  52. […] Id has a good selection of quotes in Their Words but one of the best summaries of the week was by Steven Hayward, at The Weekly Standard via the […]

  53. Jeff Id said

    ±0.5°C

    You’re kidding right?

    Fair first Nick, politics second. I’m sorry that the guys are caught playing their hand better than it is, but that is exactly what they did in the IPCC. It is in the modeling as well.

  54. Carrick said

    Nick:

    I do believe that the emails show scientists conscientiously doing their jobs.

    I think it shows these people being more interested in politics than science and totally sucking at both. Then again I don’t have those rose-colored glasses you seen to wear when you look at their behavior, so YMMV.

    I can tell you I’ve met plenty of scientists I’ve had no regard for, either because their science sucked, they were just operators, or both. When you see enough of it, all of the prevarication in the world can’t obscure it. I think the same thing would apply to many here with similar workplace experience.

    If it’s what you’ve got to tell yourself to believe, then I guess that works for you. But it’s not remarkably different than my mother in law with her religious beliefs (thinks dinos and humans walked together). With her after a while I just adopted a live and let live attitude. See she has a real need to believe this nonsense, just as you have this need to set these normal humans acting like humans up on some special pedestal.

    That said, I’m a bit baffled about your reasons for posting this schlocky excuse making here . I’d stick to Joe Romm’s website where they’ll agree with anything you say as long as it’s positive towards the team. If it’s affirmation that you’re looking for, that would be a better choice.

    If you’re not reality testing well (and you really aren’t on this topic), I think posting here isn’t going to make you any happier, nor is it likely to sway anybody’s attitude.

  55. Frank K. said

    Needless to say, Nick Stoke’s lame excuses for bad behavior on the part of certain climate scientists are making my head spin…which in turn makes me nauseated.

  56. Carrick,
    I’m not interested in making excuses – I don’t think any are necessary. I’m just trying to explain why Climategate 2 isn’t making progress in the real world. But OK, I’ll desist.

  57. Ruhroh said

    Jeff;
    I wasn’t sure to link this under the “Their Words” (in Context) topic or the
    curious absence hints on ‘Consensus Media’, as, this (lengthy link) seems to have both.
    http://hro001.wordpress.com/2011/12/05/the-climate-consensus-coordinators-cookbook/

    Anyway,
    read this and then ask yourself why there aren’t a boatload of mail with those ‘cap-and-trade’ Congressmen or their staffs
    RR

  58. Carrick said

    Nick:

    I’m just trying to explain why Climategate 2 isn’t making progress in the real world

    I would rather say because a) because there isn’t that much “new” (just details filled in, good for the history books only), so it doesn’t “inform” the policy debate, b) the white washes helped the faithful but didn’t solve the image problem with the politicians (who are very used to whitewashes), and c) the fix is in (the governments have already made up their mind, they are now in the process of formulating how to explain their decision making to the advocates who cause–cap and trae–is now lost).

  59. Ruhroh said

    Found this one in Bish comments like the prior one;
    This is more like you requested, a list of CG2 with something in common;
    The text “bbc.co.uk”

    This link shows >20 full email links at that domain, so maybe it is something to be avoided unless you are prepared to be responsible.

    Please snip if this is not OK to link
    http://climatologyplagiarism.blogspot.com/2011/11/shilling-for-living.html
    RR

  60. curious said

    56 – Nick – what I’d like to see is something from somebody knowledgeable from the “AGW is a problem camp” (I think that is your position?) which lays out exactly what the proposition is, what is rock solid about it and what is the evidence that supports it. Most of it stops at “you can’t deny RTE and Arrhenius”. Please could you go a bit further? I haven’t time to really trawl the emails but I have done a brief search looking from the perspective of what is said about how dire the situation is and how solid the evidence is which supports it, but didn’t really hit on anything. Maybe it is there and my guess is you would know. How about doing a guest post to counter act all the negativity you see in the email coverage? And, for what it’s worth, I think that in the real world of public opinion, rather than press headlines, many are now sceptical of climate science.

  61. Kan said

    Nick – this is a serious request about context. In email 5055.txt dated Jun17th 2992. Ed Cook writes a response to a Tim Osborn question on why Cook did not respond to a letter from Mann in Science.

    Cook replies with some gossip and then states this:

    “In any case, he is coming out with a new NH reconstruction. It will be interesting to see what it looks like. One problem is that he will be using the RegEM method, which provides no better diagnostics (e.g. betas) than his original method. So we will still not know where his estimates are coming from.

    I read this to mean that Ed Cook, does not understand how any of the estimates from previous (prior to 2002) Mann reconstructions were generated.

    Do you read that the same way?

  62. Curious,
    My general position is, yes, AGW is happening and will change our world a lot. How bad a rise of 3-4C will be I don’t know, but it’s very likely to happen.

    You can’t deny Arrhenius and RTE. What that comes down to is that the IPCC judgment, right at the front of the SPM, that AGW has caused a rise of about 2 W/m2 in incoming radiation, is sound. Then you get to the climate sensitivity, which is more controversial. But even 2C per CO2 doubling has a big effect.

    The arithmetic that is very basic, often forgotten, is on total C. We’ve burnt overall about 350 gigatons, and about 200 of that is in the atmosphere now. Rough figures – it’s late night here. There’s at least another 3000 Gtons C we could easily dig up and burn. That puts arguments about whether we’ve only had about 0.7C rise so far in perspective. It’s more than the total C in the atmosphere and biosphere (what was there and what we’ve put there, about 1500-2000 Gtons), and doesn’t allow for unconventional carbon. It’s at least two doublings. And the real question is, can we burn it all? And if not, how will we stop ourselves?

    I haven’t mentioned the temp record, or paleo. That’s not part of the case. It’s important because if by now we hadn’t seen a temp rise, there would be legitimate questions. But we have. It isn’t the proof of AGW, but it’s consistent with it. Paleo says that it’s beyond the normal expactation, but that’s even less essential to the basic case.

  63. Kan,
    Yes, It looks like that. And Cook is not (or was not then) a fan of Mann.

    However, his complaint seems to be a generic one about RegEM. Not everyone likes it. But it isn’t a Mann invention.

    As I understand it, Ed Cook is primarily a dendro (in fact, Dr Dendro). That’s not to say that he doesn’t have an informed opinion on RegEM, but he’s not the ultimate authority. And it is nearly ten years ago.

  64. NIck you state that “”Paleo says that it’s beyond the normal expactation, but that’s even less essential to the basic case.”” This contradicts directly TAR and AR4, and indirectly contradicts what the SAR stated was needed for attribution.

    NIck, this is not the first or second or even the thrid time you have thrown out the IPCC. I do not mind, but then you are the one banging on about science and scientists, while throwing out the best and most complete overveiw of their work. How come you get to do it and not others, such as Jeff and myself who have spent years studying the attribution/paleo and the emails?

  65. Kan said

    Nick – yes he is not apparently not a fan of RegEM. However, he is also pretty clearly stating that he has no idea how Mann has created his estimators in the past either. In the several Mann papers prior to 2002 (oops I see I had typed 2992).

    Would you agree with me on this point?

    In the same email file, Briffa responds to Cook:

    ” I have just read this lettter [sic] – and I think it is crap. I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature representative ) tropical series. He is just as capable of regressing these data again [sic] any other “target” series , such as the increasing trend of self-opinionated verbage [sic] he has produced over the last few years , and … (better say no more)”

    I read this to mean that Briffa (vehemently?) does not think that Mann can claim his reconstructions represent the tropics just because they include include a few tropic series, and these tropic series are not good as temperature proxies.

    Would you agree with this interpretation?

  66. Kan,
    Yes, Cook does say he doesn’t know how the estimates of diagnostics were calculated.

    And there is worrying about the lack of tropical data. The AR4 in its featured box 6.4 says

    “There are very few long records with high temporal resolution data from the oceans, the tropics or the SH. “

    and in the text says:
    “It is important to recognise that in the NH as a whole there are few long and well-dated climate proxies, particularly for the period prior to the 17th century (Figure 6.11). Those that do exist are concentrated in extratropical, terrestrial locations, and many have greatest sensitivity to summer rather than winter (or annual) conditions. Changes in seasonality probably limit the conclusions that can be drawn regarding annual temperatures derived from predominantly summer-sensitive proxies (Jones et al., 2003). There are very few strongly temperature-sensitive proxies from tropical latitudes.”

    And John #64, I don’t know where the IPCC has asserted that its case depends on paleo. Do you have a link? Here is what the SPM says – I can’t see your version there.

  67. Kenneth Fritsch said

    I think what Nick Stokes is saying at Post #62 on his view of AGW is very general and without any details on expectations of the effects of AGW, beneficial or detrimental – very much within the realm of the consensus camp thought. Also, I think, Nick Stokes does not defend scientists in general just those in the consensus camp – and against those that might be labeled in the skeptics camp.

    I state these rather obvious observations because I have a rather major problem with the wasted bandwidth expended on generalities in the issue of AGW that I judge could be much better spent on specific issues involving the science that I personally (selfish interest here) find much more interesting and challenging than these lawyerly discussions that evolve with Nick Stokes or others of his persuasion.

    When it comes to the climategate emails I think the contents can be of interest to the observers of the science and advocacy involved, but that each observer takes away his/her own impressions. Those impressions can be valuable in determining how much scrutiny to apply to the works of some scientists, but I do not think that the defenders of the status quo and the consensus are going to change their stances – at least in public.

  68. NIck I have provided it before. You can find documentation including the emails of CG1 here at tAV with my post, IIRC, “Why Yamal Matters.” In it, I do not quote SPM which you have done at least twice, I quote what the Chapter 9 on attribution (pdf version) states, and somewhere in that post or another later one, what was stated in Chapter 10 on the models.

  69. Nick some of the material from AR4 Chapter 9. Note the use of paleo studies to support model claims.

    From IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 9 p665.

    Understanding and Attributing

    Climate Change

    Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years. This conclusion takes into account observational and forcing uncertainty, and the possibility that the response to solar forcing could be underestimated by climate models. It is also robust to the use of different climate models, different methods for estimating the responses to external forcing and variations in the analysis technique. … Anthropogenic influence has been detected in every continent except Antarctica (which has insufficient observational coverage to make an assessment), and in some sub-continental land areas. The ability of coupled climate models to simulate the temperature evolution on continental scales and the detection of anthropogenic effects on each of six continents provides stronger evidence of human influence on the global climate than was available at the time of the TAR. No climate model that has used natural forcing only has reproduced the observed global mean warming trend or the continental mean warming trends in all individual continents (except Antarctica) over the second half of the 20th century.

    From P666:

    Analyses of palaeoclimate data have increased confidence in the role of external influences on climate. Coupled climate models used to predict future climate have been used to understand past climatic conditions of the Last Glacial Maximum and the mid-Holocene. While many aspects of these past climates are still uncertain, key features have been reproduced by climate models using boundary conditions and radiative forcing for those periods. A substantial fraction of the reconstructed Northern Hemisphere inter-decadal temperature variability of the seven centuries prior to 1950 is very likely attributable to natural external forcing, and it is likely that anthropogenic forcing contributed to the early 20th-century warming evident in these records…

    From P666:

    Estimates of the climate sensitivity are now better constrained by observations. Estimates based on observational constraints indicate that it is very likely that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is larger than 1.5°C with a most likely value between 2°C and 3°C…The upper 95% limit remains difficult to constrain from observations. This supports the overall assessment based on modelling and observational studies that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely 2°C to 4.5°C with a most likely value of approximately 3°C (Box 10.2). The transient climate response, based on observational constraints, is very likely larger than 1°C and very unlikely to be greater than 3.5°C at the time of atmospheric CO2 doubling in response to a 1% yr–1 increase in CO2, supporting the overall assessment that the transient climate response is very unlikely greater than 3°C (Chapter 10).

    “”Indirect indicators (‘proxy data’ such as tree ring width and density) must be used to infer climate variations (Chapter 6) prior to the instrumental era (Chapter 3).””…..“”Past periods offer the potential to provide information not available from the instrumental record, which is affected by anthropogenic as well as natural external forcings and is too short to fully understand climate variability and major climate system feedbacks on inter-decadal and longer time scales.”” Left out the page, when reformatiing.

    P679

    Past periods offer the potential to provide information not available from the instrumental record, which is affected by anthropogenic as well as natural external forcings and is too short to fully understand climate variability and major climate system feedbacks on inter-decadal and longer time scales. Indirect indicators (‘proxy data’ such as tree ring width and density) must be used to infer climate variations (Chapter 6) prior to the instrumental era (Chapter 3). A complete description of these data and of their uncertainties can be found in Chapter 6…

    WG1 Ch 9 p679… states “”Nonetheless, there is evidence that climatic responses to forcing, together with natural internal variability of the climate system, produced several well-defined climatic events, such as the cool conditions during the 17th century or relatively warm periods early in the millennium.

    9.3.3.1 Evidence of External Influence on the Climate Over the Past 1,000 Years

    A substantial number of proxy reconstructions of annual or decadal NH mean surface temperature are now available (see Figure 6.11, and the reviews by Jones et al., 2001 and Jones and Mann, 2004). Several new reconstructions have been published, some of which suggest larger variations over the last millennium than assessed in the TAR, but uncertainty remains in the magnitude of inter-decadal to inter-centennial variability. This uncertainty arises because different studies rely on different proxy data or use different reconstruction methods (Section 6.6.1).

    Nonetheless, NH mean temperatures in the second half of the 20th century were likely warmer than in any other 50-year period in the last 1.3 kyr (Chapter 6), and very likely warmer than any such period in the last 500 years. Temperatures subsequently decreased, and then rose rapidly during the most recent 100 years. This long-term tendency is punctuated by substantial shorter-term variability (Figure 6.10). page number lost in reformatting

    A number of simulations of the last millennium (Figure 6.13) have been performed using a range of models, including some simulations with AOGCMs (e.g., Crowley, 2000; Goosse and Renssen, 2001; Bertrand et al., 2002; Bauer et al., 2003; Gerber et al., 2003; see also Gonzalez-Rouco et al., 2003; Jones and Mann, 2004; Zorita et al., 2004; Weber, 2005; Tett et al., 2007). These simulations use different reconstructions of external forcing, particularly solar, volcanic and greenhouse gas forcing, and often include land use changes (e.g., Bertrand et al., 2002; Stendel et al., 2006; Tett et al., 2007). While the use of different models and forcing reconstructions leads to differences, the simulated evolution of the NH annual mean surface temperature displays some common characteristics between models that are consistent with the broad features of the data (Figures 6.13 and 9.4). For example, all simulations show relatively cold conditions during the period around 1675 to 1715 in response to natural forcing, which is in qualitative agreement with the proxy reconstructions. In all simulations shown in Figure 6.13, the late 20th century is warmer than any other multidecadal period during the last millennium. In addition, there is significant correlation between simulated and reconstructed variability (e.g., Yoshimori et al., 2005). By comparing simulated and observed atmospheric CO2 concentration during the last 1 kyr, Gerber et al. (2003) suggest that the amplitude of the temperature evolution simulated by simple climate models and EMICs is consistent with the observed evolution of CO2. Since reconstructions of external forcing are virtually independent from the reconstructions of past temperatures, this broad consistency increases confidence in the broad features of the reconstructions and the understanding of the role of external forcing in recent climate variability. The simulations also show that it is not possible to reproduce the large 20th-century warming without anthropogenic forcing regardless of which solar or volcanic forcing reconstruction is used (Crowley, 2000; Bertrand et al., 2002; Bauer et al., 2003; Hegerl et al., 2003, 2007), stressing the impact of human activity on the recent warming.

    While there is broad qualitative agreement between simulated and reconstructed temperatures, it is difficult to fully assess model-simulated variability because of uncertainty in the magnitude of historical variations in the reconstructions and differences in the sensitivity to external forcing (Table 8.2). The role of internal variability has been found to be smaller than that of the forced variability for hemispheric temperature means at decadal or longer time scales (Crowley, 2000; Hegerl et al., 2003; Goosse et al., 2004; Weber et al., 2004; Hegerl et al., 2007; Tett et al., 2007), and thus internal variability is a relatively small contributor to differences between different simulations of NH mean temperature. Other sources of uncertainty in simulations include model ocean initial conditions, which, for example, explain the warm conditions found in the Zorita et al. (2004)simulation during the first part of the millennium (Goosse et al.,2005; Osborn et al., 2006).

    By this time the reader should be able to pick out the part that is most appropriate:

    For example, all simulations show relatively cold conditions during the period around 1675 to 1715 in response to natural forcing, which is in qualitative agreement with the proxy reconstructions. In all simulations shown in Figure 6.13, the late 20th century is warmer than any other multidecadal period during the last millennium. page number lost in reformatting.

  70. Carrick said

    Nick:

    We’ve burnt overall about 350 gigatons, and about 200 of that is in the atmosphere now. Rough figures – it’s late night here. There’s at least another 3000 Gtons C we could easily dig up and burn. That puts arguments about whether we’ve only had about 0.7C rise so far in perspective

    The part that gets left out of this arithmetic is who will be burning it, not how much. The policies one adopts must account for the social-economic realities (namely the burst of new CO2 production will be by the now industrializing nations).

    By the way, assuming logarithm forcing, we are talking about a factor of two increase from present AGW forcing if all 3000 Gtons C were to be released.

    I realize we haven’t realized all of the warming from total AGW forcings to now, but-based on the GCMs—it doesn’t look very probably that we’re going to see more than a total of 2°C rise even if the 3000 Gtons were to be released, as you do have to include sulfate emissions in addition to CO2 emissions. Some scenarios actually have it cooler in 35 years than now, and net realizable warming of less than 1°C over the next 100 years.

  71. Jeff Id said

    John,

    In the future, please make sure that your quotes are in context.
    😀

  72. […] Their Words […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: