|
Click on title if
graphics are missing
Dr. Tim Ball
Canada
Free Press
Monday, Dec 14th, 2009
Charles Dickens wrote, "I have known a vast
quantity of nonsense
talked about bad men not looking you in the face. Don't trust that
conventional idea. Dishonesty will stare honesty out of countenance,
any day in the week, if there is anything to be got by it."
The criminals at the
Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in England
brazenly defend the indefensible. It is stunning to watch Michael Mann
and Gavin Schmidt, who even look alike, staring directly at the camera
and denying the significance of their emails.
It works because they used it to deceive the world. They
know most
won't understand the emails. The Associate Press (AP) has already
confirmed this.
As with Revkin at the New York Times the journalist Seth
Borenstein
of AP has no journalistic integrity. Here is his email to the gang. On
July 23, 2009 he wrote, "Kevin, Gavin, Mike, It's Seth again.
Attached is a paper in JGR today that Marc Morano is hyping
wildly.
It's in a legit journal. Watchya think?" "Again" means there
is
previous communication. A journalist talking to scientists is
legitimate, but like the email's tone and subjective comments are
telling.
Out of Context
They claim they're taken out of context. In context the
fullness of their criminality is exposed. I
already described the nature of the Climatic Research Unit
and the rogue scientists therein.
Then there are the ones those who
did the dirty work.
They claim there's nothing of consequence in the emails,
but they're
a litany of manipulation of, the data, the process, publications, peer
review, and personal attacks. Understanding requires knowledge of the
science and the history of events.
Data Manipulation
The primary issue is the data. Science requires data and
inadequacy
of the climate record was always a problem. Climatology recognizes
three distinct periods: The very recent instrumental period; the
historical period to 3000 years, and the geologic/ biologic for the
rest. They manipulated data in all three but the first is critical
because it is the source of material for the computer models, the
vehicle of their deception.
There are few long continuous reliable stations (Figure
1a). Most
are on land and there are fewer now than in 1960 (Figure 1b). Figure 2
shows there are virtually no records for the oceans and much of the
land. The density looks solid but the large dots are on a very small
world map. It is a very sparse inadequate network especially as the
basis for construction of the computer models.
Figure 1: Station information determined by NASA
GISS.
Figure 2 Weather stations distribution with vast
gaps.
Source: GHCN
The data is questionable because the Global Historical Climatology
Network (GHCN) manipulates the data prior to its use by others; they
call it homogenizing. The public rarely sees the raw data and CRU
'lost' theirs. Users like CRU, who produce global annual average
temperatures, select stations that create the results they want, then
'adjust' the data again for their purposes. As Warwick Hughes notes, "As
an oddity, Phil Jones claimed to have taken out San Juan (PR), that it
somehow failed their 1986 tests. Well it sure is in
their list of
stations USED in gridding. It is a classic story, the inclusion of UHI
(Urban Heat Island) warming biased trends which dominate the rural data
where the more accurate regional trends are recorded - albeit
in more
gappy data."
Translation:
a
false warming record exists because of the growth of urban areas. Jones
chose them over rural stations that don't show "warming".
Lack Of Data Means Computer Models Can't Work
Figure 3 is a schematic of a climate model. CRU
described them as follows; "GCM's
are complex, three-dimensional computer-based models of the atmospheric
circulation. Uncertainties in our understanding of climate processes,
the natural variability of the climate, and limitations of the GCMs
mean that their results are not definite predictions of future
climate."
Figure 3: Schematic of the structure of a global
climate model.
Source: Briggs Smithson and Ball, Fundamentals of Physical Geography
Superimpose the surface of the grid in Figure 3 on the
map in Figure
2 and you have a majority of squares with no data. It's worse above the
surface. CRU emails talk of attempts to hide, ignore, or avoid the
problem. Jones used the record for 'gridding', which is the basic
method used to produce the computer models. When you have a grid with
no data you have to 'infill' with estimates using the nearest data. But
in most cases the nearest data is inadequate or in a different
setting.
On the 28 October 2002 email Phil Jones explains to Tom
Wigley, "We've
had to 'move' some stations to be on model land to get better
comparisons. Islands that are not in the model have poor comparisons."
"Model land" means the problem of a square that is half on land and
half on water and designated 'land'. As recently as November 6, 2009
Wigley wrote to Jones about the larger problem. "We probably
need
to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the
ocean warming--and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban
warming is real and important." You're darn right it's
important because you've chosen mostly urban records. They knew, as
this email indicates. "CRU
temperature data - not the latest version, but the one you used in
MBH98 !!(The hockey stick) We added lots of data in for the region this
person says has Urban Warming! So easy review to do."
"Latest
version" is telling - they adjusted, as errors were noticed, not to
improve the accuracy but to counteract criticism. The last sentence
means "easy" for the questions they choose to rebuff. They ignored
tough ones .
Then there's the problem of squares with no data. Jones
to Wigley 13 December 2005 notes, "There isn't any data at
the N. Pole." It is an understatement as this map
(Figure 4) from the Arctic Impact Assessment report used by the IPCC
shows.
Figure 4: Lack of data area covers most of Arctic
basin.
Source: CRU East Anglia.
It is not much better at the other Pole. Tim Osborne's
email to the group says, "Even
if you do something to sort out the problem at the S. Pole, how about
the isolated boxes around the coast of Antarctica, which will be given
much less weight than an isolated box in the tropics which might also
have only 1 station in." The problem is South Pole
temperatures
declined over the period of record. They produced another shameless
"peer reviewed" paper to falsely show Antarctica was warming; another example
of statistical manipulation.
Hiding Data
Manipulations mean GISS have different results for
global average
annual temperatures than CRU. It invited this probing email from Yousif
Kharaka of the US Geological Survey via Judith Lean to Mann. "I
have been puzzled as to why global temperature data from the British
Hadley Centre are different from those reported by NASA GISS,
especially in the last 10 years."
Mann replies on 15 October 2008; "My
understanding is that the differences arise largely from how missing
data are dealt with". Jones adds, "The
GISS group average surface T data into 80 equal area boxes across the
world. The UK group (CRU/MOHC) grid the data into 5 by 5 degree
lat/long boxes, as does NCDC." So the data in each box is
different but always less than adequate. No wonder models fail all
validation tests that measure their ability to recreate past
conditions. Another problem arose as this email indicates. "Also
it would seem odd to validate any model in a region where there is no
data in a region that had to be infilled." You can't
validate what doesn't exist.
Denying access or manipulating the data to falsify the
models pervades the emails. Jones wrote to Mann on Feb 26 2004. "Most
of the data series in most of the plots have just appeared on the CRU
web site. Go to data then to paleoclimate. Did this to stop getting
hassled by the skeptics for the data series. Mike Mann refuses to talk
to these people and I can understand why. They are just trying to find
if we've done anything wrong." Jones to Mann, Bradley and
Hughes on Feb 21 2005. "I'm
getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station
temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a
Freedom of Information Act!"
These are not innocent comments. What was there to hide? Answer how
they falsified the data as the emails expose when you put them in
context.
|
