Climate Change Emails from CRU

[Michael]

Some few months ago, there was a big stir amongst the climate change denialists accusing the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University of dishonesty based on some leaked emails.

The British goverment took the matter seriously and investigated. UK Parliament has issued its findings:

Science and Technology Committee Announcement

Session 2009-10

31 March 2010

CLIMATE SCIENCE MUST BECOME MORE TRANSPARENT SAY MPs

The Science and Technology Committee today publishes its report on the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The Committee calls for the climate science community to become more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies.

Phil Willis MP, Committee Chair, said:

"Climate science is a matter of global importance. On the basis of the science, governments across the world will be spending trillions of pounds on climate change mitigation. The quality of the science therefore has to be irreproachable. What this inquiry revealed was that climate scientists need to take steps to make available all the data that support their work and full methodological workings, including their computer codes. Had both been available, many of the problems at CRU could have been avoided."

The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones's refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change.

On the much cited phrases in the leaked e-mails—"trick" and "hiding the decline"—the Committee considers that they were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead.

Insofar as the Committee was able to consider accusations of dishonesty against CRU, the Committee considers that there is no case to answer.

The Committee found no reason in this inquiry to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, that "global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity". But this was not an inquiry into the science produced by CRU and it will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel, announced by the University on 22 March, to determine whether the work of CRU has been soundly built.

On the mishandling of Freedom of Information (FoI) requests, the Committee considers that much of the responsibility should lie with the University, not CRU. The leaked e-mails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted to avoid disclosure, particularly to climate change sceptics. The failure of the University to grasp fully the potential damage this could do and did was regrettable. The University needs to re-assess how it can support academics whose expertise in FoI requests is limited.

Source-UK Government (http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology/s_t_pn32_100331.cfm)

This appears to exhonerate Professor Jones and the CRU entirely of the accusations leveled in the popular press. Evidence was not suppressed.

Another wingnut 'talking point' bites the dust.

[Americano]

Yes, but you be can certain the new information won't receive the attention generated by the accusations.

[Tom Palven]

The recent letter below, from former Jersey Boy Rick Hoegberg, who now lives in Fairbanks, Alaska, to former Jersey Boy Stu Swirsky, who now lives near Orlando, FL, is the most concise and comprehensible statement I've read on the subject of global warming.

Hey Stuey -

The *average* temp of the planet is rising. Further, so is the atmospheric CO2 &
methane levels, both greenhouse gasses (GHG). Both are unequivocally documented.
Further, when the latter rises, the theory is that so will the former. This
hypothesis receives significant confirming data in the form of measurements of
matter trapped in air bubbles in ice core samples.

The matter is an array of radionucleides & GHGs that are produced at one rate
whilst free to circulate in the ecosphere and then decay at a highly predictable
rate once sequestered.

There is some legitimate argument about whether the solar flux is constant or at
least predictable over the periods examined. i.e. if the solar flux 10,000 years
ago was significantly higher than now, then this would produce relatively more
unstable isotopes and skew the time calibration deduced from relative isotope
quantities.

However, this is addressed by cross referencing measurements to climatological
conditions found in the fossil record (e.g. ferns in Alaska back when vs very
shaggy animals later on vs today) and it turns out that Sol follows a steady and
predictable output.

Returning to the hypothesis, the correlation between past temperatures (based on
radionucleide ratios) and entrapped GHGs, both found in these ice core samples
match current computer models derived using heat balance equations.

Thus we have a convergence of theoretical modelling and empirical data. This
means
the hypothesis appears to have been validated from empirical data recovered
using
the discipline of paleoclimatology.

From there it is not difficult to project average world temps as we close in on
400
ppm of CO2 versus ~275 ppm before the Industrial revolution got underway.

What is more difficult to predict is how the climate of particular regions will
be
affected. Interestingly, some places that are now considered inhospitable will
become more hospitable, especially to conventional agriculture. On the other
hand,
now temperate locations may heat up or in a few cases, even cool down. In
*aggregate* however, the planet *will* warm.

What keeps those of us up at night who follow this is the possibility of several
positive feedback loops coming into action. While in regular language "positive
feedback" is desirable, in science, a positive feedback loop describes a system
transitioning between 2 stable conditions i.e. an unstable condition.

One such + feedback loop is observed arctic oceanic ice cap shrinkage. As this
shrinks, the average albedo (IR reflective property) of the original area
decreases, from white ice to dark blue water, encouraging greater solar energy
absorbtion which melts more ice shrinking the ice cap further...you may know
that a
glass of water with even the smallest scrap of ice cannot exceed 32°F until he
last
molecule of ice phase shifts to water - but once that happens the water
temperature
can rise rapidly...

Another + feedback loop is all the methane from decayed organic matter that is
curerntly sequestered in permafrost from Siberia through Alaska, the Yukon & the
Northwest Territories. Once some of the permafrost melts, it will release this
methane which will return to the atmosphere where it will trap otherwise
reradiated
solar IR at 21x the rate of CO2...melting more permafrost...

Maybe you have read all of this before in which case I apologize with a question
-
what part or parts do you doubt? On the other hand of this is all new to you
then I
encourage you to read the scientific basis for accepting or rejecting the
hypothesis based on your own analysis.

I keep emphasizing that just because the damn government wants to use climate
change as an excuse to get involved with more of our lives, doesn't mean the
phenomonum is fictional or laden with huge consequences. Ask yourselves - when
has
any government ever needed an excuse to do anything? I say, don't, in this case,
wrongfully dismiss the issue because of a justified skepticism in government
truthtelling. Sometimes the biggest lies are told by bending the truth.

Questions? Comments? It'd be good to hear a little more from each of you.

- Rick

[Michael]

The recent letter below, from former Jersey Boy Rick Hoegberg, who now lives in Fairbanks, Alaska, to former Jersey Boy Stu Swirsky, who now lives near Orlando, FL, is the most concise and comprehensible statement I've read on the subject of global warming.
There are in fact lots of statements like this out there and always have been. I think it is just the overwhelmingly biased US media environment that makes such statements appear so rare or radical. Suffice it to say that there is no 'pop-culture' debate about the veracity of global climate change theory outside the USA. Indeed, to see any credence given to climate-change denialists, one must be engaging US media sources because there isn't much debate going on outside of US media reporting of it.

Sure the scientists debate their relative findings and predictions, as they are supposed to, but that's academic/scientific method and not part of the pop-culture media issue. On the other hand, the pop-culture media issue in the USA is all about building political support for ignoring the problem and maintianing the highly profitable status quo policies (that have caused the problem).