Yes and there are many other signs as to why that would be, generally hackers do it for the "glory". Typical hacker would have been flaunting this anywhere he could be heard. Another point that has brought up is he knew what he was looking for, the emails are just small part of the file. The larger part is the datasets which have been requested by many people for years. One has wonder if there isn't a ticking time bomb there too. Guess we'll find out as the people requesting that data now have their hands in it. Even if it was outside job it certainly wasn't hacker in the typical sense of the word.dll wrote:The feeling from the people that have been following this for many months is that this posting of the hacked files was an inside job by a whistle blower within CRU. Under UK law the whistle blower is protected from prosecution.
Lets suppose they are right? By their arrogance and elitism they have just set the research on this back at least a decade. Some of these people may end up in Jail. I was reading one article where Mann apparently testified before Congress one thing and the email show another. To quote the commenter "Mann of Penn State will be known as Mann of State Pen" if that is the case.How about a little reality check?
Note the total scale is 1% or 1/100 of the true representation becsue if it were full size there would be nothing to see.stockingfull wrote:Lessee, in just the last, say, 150 years of the planet's history, we've
1. had a population explosion of humankind, generating unprecedented carbon emissions by our mere existence;
2. deforested vast areas of carbon-processing green plants to create habitat; and
3. burned zillions of tons of never-before-used subterranean carbon resources (coal, oil, gas) for our heat and to feed the machinery of the industrial revolution.
Just to add as it's not clear from that graph how fast this level is rising but to get to 1% or the top of the graph would take about 10,000 years at the current rate it's going up.Richard S. wrote: Granted this increase could possibly have an effect but the propaganda machine such as Al Gore will lead you to believe we are radically changing the composition of the atmosphere which we are not.
Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have
If an update station matches a 'master' station by WMO code, but the data is unpalatably
inconsistent, the operator is given three choices:
<BEGIN QUOTE>
You have failed a match despite the WMO codes matching.
This must be resolved!! Please choose one:
1. Match them after all.
2. Leave the existing station alone, and discard the update.
3. Give existing station a false code, and make the update the new WMO station.
Enter 1,2 or 3:
<END QUOTE>
You can't imagine what this has cost me - to actually allow the operator to assign false
WMO codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a 'Master'
database of dubious provenance (which, er, they all are and always will be).
False codes will be obtained by multiplying the legitimate code (5 digits) by 100, then adding
1 at a time until a number is found with no matches in the database. THIS IS NOT PERFECT but as
there is no central repository for WMO codes - especially made-up ones - we'll have to chance
duplicating one that's present in one of the other databases. In any case, anyone comparing WMO
codes between databases - something I've studiously avoided doing except for tmin/tmax where I
had to - will be treating the false codes with suspicion anyway. Hopefully.
Of course, option 3 cannot be offered for CLIMAT bulletins, there being no metadata with which
to form a new station.
This still meant an awful lot of encounters with naughty Master stations, when really I suspect
nobody else gives a hoot about. So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option -
to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations (er, CLIMAT excepted). In other
words, what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to
become bad, but I really don't think people care enough to fix 'em, and it's the main reason the
project is nearly a year late.
And there are STILL WMO code problems!!! Let's try again with the issue. Let's look at the first
station in most of the databases, JAN MAYEN. Here it is in various recent databases:
Nothing man has done has had any effect on the earth's temperature, IMHO.Lessee, in just the last, say, 150 years of the planet's history, we've
1. had a population explosion of humankind, generating unprecedented carbon emissions by our mere existence;
2. deforested vast areas of carbon-processing green plants to create habitat; and
3. burned zillions of tons of never-before-used subterranean carbon resources (coal, oil, gas) for our heat and to feed the machinery of the industrial revolution.
But I'm sure that any effect upon the earth's temperature is just a coincidence.
http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/story/chapter08.htmlThe earliest known use of coal was in China. Coal from the Fu-shun mine in northeastern China may have been used to smelt copper as early as 3,000 years ago. The Chinese thought coal was a stone that could burn.
From: "Mick Kelly" <[email protected]>
To: Nguyen Huu Ninh ([email protected])
Subject: NOAA funding
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:17:15 +0000
Ninh
NOAA want to give us more money for the El Nino work with IGCN.
How much do we have left from the last budget? I reckon most has been spent
but we need to show some left to cover the costs of the trip Roger didn't make and also
the fees/equipment/computer money we haven't spent otherwise NOAA will be suspicious.
Politically this money may have to go through Simon's institute but there overhead rate is high so maybe not!
Best wishes
Mick
In my career in the chemical industry I've done quite a bit of modeling myself. Such a result given the small differences involved brings into question the validity of the model and it's underlying assumptions more than anything else. The other thing to consider is the fact that much of what determines local weather is the result of randomness. This randomness tends to cancel out the weirder effects rather than enhancing them.franco b wrote:Can the flapping of a butterfly's wings in Brazil produce a tornado in Texas?
That was the title of a speech given in 1966 by the meteorologist Edward Lorenz. Lorenz had entered numbers for temperature, wind speed ,etc. into a computerized climate model. The program gave answers carried to 6 decimal places. Lorenz decided to check the result again and re-entered the computer given numbers again, only to save time he only carried them to 3 decimal places. He was astounded to find the result was wildly different from his first result. After checking everything he realized that the different result was because he had used only 3 decimal places. Instead of using say 6.123456 he used 6.123. That tiny infinitesimal change caused his result to change drastically.
The whole point is that changes that are far beyond our ability to measure have far reaching effects on the developing weather. So we have "experts" steeped in ignorance making pronouncements in both the climate and economy that will have far reaching effects on both.
Richard
Yeaaaaaaa, wouldn't want to go all jouranlistically on us now would ya... (I invented new word!)http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/priv ... n-display/
The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here. But a quick sift of skeptics’ Web sites will point anyone to plenty of sources.
And across the pond as well....Inhofe to call for hearing into CRU, U.N. climate change research - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
In an interview with The Washington Times on Monday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) announced he would probe whether the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not."
"[T]his thing is serious, you think about the literally millions of dollars that have been thrown away on some of this stuff that they came out with," Inhofe, the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said during the interview.
Climate change champion and sceptic call for inquiry into leaked emails | Environment | guardian.co.uk
Climate change champion and sceptic both call for inquiry into leaked emails
Both sides of climate change debate urge investigation as Met Office dismisses 'shallow attempt to discredit robust science'
Prominent voices on both sides of the climate change debate today called for an independent inquiry into claims of collusion between climate scientists after it emerged last week that hundreds of their emails and documents had been leaked that allegedly manipulated data and destroyed evidence for Freedom of Information Act requests.
The very first coal mined that is recorded was coal that was mined during the Roman Occupation of Britain in 55 BC to 436 AD) along the banks of the rivers Clyde and Forth. Later in Britain coal was mined by the monks of Holyrood and Newbattle Abbeys in Scotland and also by the monks of Northumberland. In 1215 coal was mentioned in the Great Charter of King John Here is an interesting tidbit about coal mining. During King Edward’s reign (1239-1307) he imposed the death penalty to anyone using coal because it was believed that it gave off, "poisonous odors." That bias against the use of coal lasted for about two centuries. Most of us "Coal Crackers" think that the first coal discovered in America was in West Virginia or Pennsylvania. Sorry, not so! The first coal discovered in America was in 1673 near present day Utica, Illinois. This is credited to Louis Joliet and Jacques Marquette. It was also Benjamin Franklin who converted a fireplace that he had invented in 1741 to burn coal and subsequently invented the coal stoves that burn both Anthracite as well as Bituminous Coal. Although most of us senior citizens know what went on above the ground, so little is known what went on underground. We know so little about the profession of "coal mining." Coal mining wasn't just a hit and miss type of venture. Most mines were well planned and engineered. The coal companies knew were the veins of coal were located but when it came to inclines, rolls or pitches this was something that was found out when the tunnels and chutes were driven.Wood'nCoal wrote:Nothing man has done has had any effect on the earth's temperature, IMHO.Lessee, in just the last, say, 150 years of the planet's history, we've
1. had a population explosion of humankind, generating unprecedented carbon emissions by our mere existence;
2. deforested vast areas of carbon-processing green plants to create habitat; and
3. burned zillions of tons of never-before-used subterranean carbon resources (coal, oil, gas) for our heat and to feed the machinery of the industrial revolution.
But I'm sure that any effect upon the earth's temperature is just a coincidence.
One good volcanic eruption will spew an enormous amount of climate changing materials into the atmosphere, and there have been thousands of eruptions throughout time, dwarfing anything man has done or will do.
The only way man's actions could change the climate would be massive nuclear detonations resulting in a predicted nuclear winter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter
Coal was burned well before 1859 (150 years ago).http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/story/chapter08.htmlThe earliest known use of coal was in China. Coal from the Fu-shun mine in northeastern China may have been used to smelt copper as early as 3,000 years ago. The Chinese thought coal was a stone that could burn.
I suspect the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file is ticking time bomb, as I'm interpreting that file and if it's as bad as that file would suggest then the real travesty will be the loss of irreplaceable records. The original data has been deleted at least according to Phil Jones of the CRU:stockingfull wrote: I'll tell you one thing: if this "leak story" is to gain any traction at all,
Only time will tell.Patrick J. Michaels on National Review Online
Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.
