This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences Faculty of Science University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
climactic-research-unit-foi-leaked-data(wikileaks)\FOIA\documents\osborntree6\mann\abdlowfreq2grid.pro(13): There is some ; ambiguity during the modern period here, however, because the corrected ; version has already been artificially adjusted to reproduce the largest ; scales of observed temperature over recent decades - so a new adjustment ; would be unwelcome. Therefore, the adjustment term is scaled back towards ; zero when being applied to the corrected data set, so that it is linearly ; interpolated from its 1950 value to zero at 1970 and kept at zero thereafter. climactic-research-unit-foi-leaked-data(wikileaks)\FOIA\documents\osborntree6\mann\mxdgrid2ascii.pro(103): printf,1, printf,1,'Osborn et al. (2004) gridded reconstruction of warm-season' printf,1,'(April-September) temperature anomalies (from the 1961-1990 mean).' printf,1,'Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.' printf,1 printf,1,'NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY' printf,1,'REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values' printf,1,'will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be,' printf,1,'which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful' printf,1,'than it actually is. See Osborn et al. (2004).' printf,1 printf,1,'Osborn TJ, Briffa KR, Schweingruber FH and Jones PD (2004)' printf,1,'Annually resolved patterns of summer temperature over the Northern' printf,1,'Hemisphere since AD 1400 from a tree-ring-density network.' printf,1,'Submitted to Global and Planetary Change.' documents\harris-tree\recon_esper.pro: ; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass Esper et al. (2002) series, ; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series. ; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N 1
; ; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid ; the decline ; climactic-research-unit-foi-leaked-data(wikileaks)\FOIA\documents\harristree\recon_overpeck.pro(2): ; ; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass MEAN timeseries of MXD ; anomalies against full NH temperatures. ; THIS IS FOR THE OVERPECK CIRCUM-ARCTIC RECORD ; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N ; *** Complicated because Overpeck record is five-yr-means only *** ; ; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1940 to avoid ; the decline climactic-research-unit-foi-leaked-data(wikileaks)\FOIA\documents\osborntree6\mann\oldprog\maps1.pro(5): ; ; Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD ; reconstructions ; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually ; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to ; the real temperatures. briff_sep98_e.pro: ; ; PLOTS ‘ALL’ REGION MXD timeseries from age banded and from hugershoff ; standardised datasets. ; Reads Harry’s regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992 portion ; with missing values set appropriately. Uses mxd, and just the ; “all band” timeseries ;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE********* from README_GRIDDING.TXT.. “Use dist to specify the correlation decay distance for the climate variable being interpolated – necessary information to determine where to add dummy or synthetic data.”
0942777075.txt written by Phil Jones, the centre’s director, in 1999
"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's [size=4]to hide the decline."[/size] 1177423054.txt From: Ben Santer <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Subject: Re: FYI Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:57:34 -0700 The bottom line here is that observational data are frequently "messy". They are not the neat, tidy beasts Mr. Keenan would like them to be. 2
This holds not only for surface temperature measurements. It also holds - in spades - for measurements of tropospheric temperature from MSU and radiosondes, and for measurements of ocean temperatures from XBTs, profiling floats, etc. We would like observing systems to be more accurate, more stable, and better-suited for monitoring decadal-scale changes in climate. You and Kevin and many other are actively working towards that goal. The key message here is that, despite uncertainties in the surface temperature record - uncertainties which you and others in the field are well aware of, and have worked hard to quantify - it is now unequivocal that surface temperatures have warmed markedly over the past 100 years. Uncertainties in the station histories do not negate this basic message. 1255352257.txt From: Kevin Trenberth <email@example.com> To: Michael Mann <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600 Cc: Stephen H Schneider <email@example.com>, Myles Allen <firstname.lastname@example.org>, peter stott <email@example.com>, "Philip D. Jones" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Benjamin Santer <email@example.com>, Tom Wigley <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov>, Gavin Schmidt <email@example.com>, James Hansen <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@Princeton.EDU> Hi all Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather). Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.) The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate. That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007. see http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_c urrent.ppt Kevin Michael Mann wrote: extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office. We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here? 3
mike 1255352257.txt From: "Narasimha D. Rao" <email@example.com> To: "Stephen H Schneider" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: BBC U-turn on climate Steve, You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC's reporter on climate change, on Friday wrote that there's been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will force cooling for the next 20-30 years. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are other skeptics' views. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on-cl imate-change/ BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US. Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist? Narasimha
1054736277.txt From: "Michael E. Mann" <email@example.com> To: Phil Jones <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, Tom Wigley <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Tom Crowley <email@example.com>, Keith Briffa <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, Michael Oppenheimer <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Jonathan Overpeck <email@example.com> Subject: Re: Prospective Eos piece? ……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”[ Medieval Warm Period], even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…. mann/oldprog/hovmueller_lon: ; Plots a HovMueller diagram (longitude-time) of meridionally averaged ; growing season reconstructions. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually ; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to ; the real temperatures. mann/oldprog/calibrate_correctmxd: ; We have previously (calibrate_mxd.pro) calibrated the high-pass filtered ; MXD over 1911-1990, applied the calibration to unfiltered MXD data (which ; gives a zero mean over 1881-1960) after extending the calibration to boxes ; without temperature data (pl_calibmxd1.pro). We have identified and ; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated ; data set. We now recalibrate this corrected calibrated dataset against 4
; the unfiltered 1911-1990 temperature data, and apply the same calibration ; to the corrected and uncorrected calibrated MXD data. frs_gts_anom.PRO: ; calculate 1961-1990 synthetic normal from adjusted tmn print,'Calculating synthetic frs normal' for iy=nor1,nor2 do begin tmpfl=strip(string(tmp_prefix,iy)) dtrfl=strip(string(dtr_prefix,iy)) rdbin,tmpgrd,tmpfl,gridsize=2.5,/quiet rdbin,dtrgrd,dtrfl,gridsize=2.5,/quiet tmn(nland)=(tmpgrd(nland)-(0.5*dtrgrd(nland)))/10.0 frssyn(nland)=frssyn(nland)+frscal(tmn(nland)) endfor frssyn(nland)=frssyn(nland)/(nor2-nor1+1) for im=0,11 do begin temp=frssyn(*,*,im) nfin=where(temp gt 0) temp(nfin)=(temp(nfin)/100.0)*days(im) frssyn(*,*,im)=temp endfor frssyn(nsea)=-999.9 ; Calculate synthetic frs from tmin, convert to anomalies ; relative to synthetic mean frs, and apply to normal frs print,'Calculating synthetic anomalies' mann/abdlowfreq2grid: ; HUGREG=Hugershoff regions, ABDREG=age-banded regions, HUGGRID=Hugershoff grid ; The calibrated (uncorrected) versions of all these data sets are used. ; However, the same adjustment is then applied to the corrected version of ; the grid Hugershoff data, so that both uncorrected and corrected versions ; are available with the appropriate low frequency variability. There is some ; ambiguity during the modern period here, however, because the corrected ; version has already been artificially adjusted to reproduce the largest ; scales of observed temperature over recent decades - so a new adjustment ; would be unwelcome. Therefore, the adjustment term is scaled back towards ; zero when being applied to the corrected data set, so that it is linearly ; interpolated from its 1950 value to zero at 1970 and kept at zero thereafter. mann/mxd_eof_rotate: ; ; Computes EOFs of infilled calibrated MXD gridded dataset. ; Can use corrected or uncorrected MXD data (i.e., corrected for the decline). ; Do not usually rotate, since this loses the common volcanic and global ; warming signal, and results in regional-mean series instead. ; Generally use the correlation matrix EOFs. 5
mann/mxd_pcr_localtemp: ; ; Tries to reconstruct Apr-Sep temperatures, on a box-by-box basis, from the ; EOFs of the MXD data set. This is PCR, although PCs are used as predictors ; but not as predictands. This PCR-infilling must be done for a number of ; periods, with different EOFs for each period (due to different spatial ; coverage). *BUT* don't do special PCR for the modern period (post-1976), ; since they won't be used due to the decline/correction problem. ; Certain boxes that appear to reconstruct well are "manually" removed because ; they are isolated and away from any trees. HARRY_READ_ME.txt Results (n= 988): 37.59707 -6.05338
So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage! In fact, I might print out this cell as an example. Let's see: limit nvals factor intercept 10 52 nan nan 20 728 -7.68581 33.30551 none 1716 -8.32450 34.28972 Hmm.. also tried just removing duplicate strings (rather than whole cells): limit nvals factor intercept 10 1160 -6.99748 26.31960 This 'looks' better - not so steep, and the intercept is a shade closer to 0. The Matlab script plotcld.m allows comparison of scatter diagrams, these are fed from example data files manually extracted from the cloudreg.log file after varying the duplicate limit and/or strategy. Showed Phil - and now sidetracked into producing global mean series from the 3.0 parameters (DTR first). OK, got cloud working, have to generate it now.. but distracted by starting on the mythical 'Update' program. As usual, it's much more complicated than it seems. So, let's work out the order of events. May 2007 e-mail from Phil Jones that Ben Santer is replying to in 1178107838.txt. Jones says: As a side issue , the disappearance of sea ice in the Arctic is going to cause loads of problems monitoring temps there as when SST data have come in from the areas that have been mostly sea ice, it is always warm as the 61-90 means are close to -1.8C. Been talking to Nick Rayner about this. It isn’t serious yet, but it’s getting to be a problem. In the AR4 chapter, we had to exclude the SST from the Arctic plot as the Arctic (north of 65N) from 1950 was above the 61-90 average for most of the years that had enough data to estimate a value. HARRY_READ_ME.txt 6
“This whole project is SUCH A MESS. No wonder I needed therapy!!” Found in calibrate_mxd.pro: ; ; Calibrates the gridded and infilled MXD data against instrumental ; summer temperatures (land&sea). On a grid-box basis first, using the ; period 1911-1990 for calibration and the period 1856-1910 for verification, ; where data is available. ; ; Due to the decline, all time series are first high-pass filter with a ; 40-yr filter, although the calibration equation is then applied to raw ; data data4alps.pro,70 printf,1,'IMPORTANT NOTE:' printf,1,'The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density' printf,1,'records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer' printf,1,'temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set' printf,1,'this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and' printf,1,'this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring printf,1,'density variations, but have been modified to look more like the printf,1,'observed temperatures.' ; From: Phil Jones <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Straight to the Point Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 18:51:01 +0100 Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org,email@example.com,firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com Mike, We'll differ a bit on a few points, but let's wipe the slate clean and get back to improving our estimates of past changes over the last millennium. I must admit to having little regard for the Web. Living over here makes that easier than in the US - but I would ignore the so-called skeptics until they get to the peer-review arena. I know this is harder for you in the US and it might become harder still at your new location. I guess it shows though that what we are doing in important. The skeptics are fighting a losing battle. Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email firstname.lastname@example.org NR4 7TJ UK 7
From: Phil Jones <email@example.com> To: "Michael E. Mann" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004 Mike, Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY - don't pass on. Relevant paras are the last 2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia for years. He knows the're wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future ! I didn't say any of this, so be careful how you use it - if at all. Keep quiet also that you have the pdf. The attachment is a very good paper - I've been pushing Adrian over the last weeks to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also for ERA-40. The basic message is clear - you have to put enough surface and sonde obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice. The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see it. I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ! Cheers Phil Mike, For your interest, there is an ECMWF ERA-40 Report coming out soon, which shows that Kalnay and Cai are wrong. It isn't that strongly worded as the first author is a personal friend of Eugenia. The result is rather hidden in the middle of the report. It isn't peer review, but a slimmed down version will go to a journal. KC are wrong because the difference between NCEP and real surface temps (CRU) over eastern N. America doesn't happen with ERA-40. ERA-40 assimilates surface temps (which NCEP didn't) and doing this makes the agreement with CRU better. Also ERA-40's trends in the lower atmosphere are all physically consistent where NCEP's are not - over eastern US. I can send if you want, but it won't be out as a report for a couple of months. Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email email@example.com NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------From: Ben Santer <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Subject: Re: FYI Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:58:29 -0700 Reply-to: email@example.com 8
<x-flowed> Dear Phil, I looked at some of the stuff on the Climate Audit web site. I'd really like to talk to a few of these "Auditors" in a dark alley. They seem to have no understanding of how science is actually done - no appreciation of the fact that uncertainty is an integral part of what we do. Once again, just let me know how I can help.... 1075403821.txt From: Phil Jones <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: Fwd: John L. Daly dead Date: Thu Jan 29 14:17:01 2004 From: Timo Hämeranta <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: <email@example.com> Subject: John L. Daly dead Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:04:28 +0200 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 Importance: Normal Mike, In an odd way this is cheering news ! One other thing about the CC paper - just found another email - is that McKittrick says it is standard practice in Econometrics journals to give all the data and codes !! According to legal advice IPR overrides this. Cheers Phil "It is with deep sadness that the Daly Family have to announce the sudden death of John Daly.Condolences may be sent to John's email account (firstname.lastname@example.org) " Reported with great sadness Timo Hämeranta xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Timo Hämeranta, LL.M. Moderator, Climatesceptics Martinlaaksontie 42 B 9 01620 Vantaa Finland, Member State of the European Union Moderator: email@example.com Private: firstname.lastname@example.org Home page: http://personal.inet.fi/koti/hameranta/climate.htm Moderator of the discussion group "Sceptical Climate Science" http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatesceptics "To dwell only on horror scenarios of the future shows only a lack of imagination". (Kari Enqvist) 9
"If the facts change, I'll change my opinion. What do you do, Sir" (John Maynard Keynes) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email email@example.com NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------References 1. http://personal.inet.fi/koti/hameranta/climate.htm 2. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatesceptics
From: Tom Wigley To: Phil Jones Subject: LAND vs OCEAN Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:36:15 -0700 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. See attached note. Comments? Tom From: Phil Jones To: “Michael E. Mann” Subject: IPCC & FOI Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008 Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!! Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Professor Overpeck prefers they be called the “team”: 10
At 14:09 -0600 13-09-06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: thanks David - lets see what others think. I agree, that we don’t want to be seen as being too clever or defensive. Note however, that all the TAR said was “likely” the warmest in the last 1000 years. Our chapter and figs (including 6.10) make it clear that it is unlikely any multi-decadal period was as warm as the last 50 years. But, that said, I do feel your are right that our team would not have said what the TAR said about 1998, and thus, we should delete that second sentence. any other thoughts team? jones-foiathoughts.doc Options appear to be: 1. Send them the data 2. Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s. 3. Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.
From: “Michael E. Mann” To: Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa Subject: update Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500 Cc: Gavin Schmidt guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we put up the RC post. By now, you’ve probably read that nasty McIntyre thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don’t go there personally, but so I’m informed). Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include. You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’get to use the RC comments as a megaphone…
1255100876.txt From: Ben Santer <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Subject: Re: CEI formal petition to derail EPA GHG endangerment finding with charge that destruction of CRU raw data undermines integrity of global temperature record Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:07:56 -0700 11
Reply-to: email@example.com <x-flowed> Dear Phil, I've known Rick Piltz for many years. He's a good guy. I believe he used to work with Mike MacCracken at the U.S. Global Change Research Program. I'm really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted. I'll help you to deal with Michaels and the CEI in any way that I can. The only reason these guys are going after you is because your work is of crucial importance - it changed the way the world thinks about human effects on climate. Your work mattered in the 1980s, and it matters now. With best wishes, Ben 1255095172.txt Rick Piltz wrote: > Gentlemen-> > I expect that you have already been made aware of the petition to EPA > from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (and Pat Michaels) calling for > a re-opening of public comment on EPA's prospective "endangerment" > finding on greenhouse gases. CEI is charging that the CRU at East Anglia > has destroyed the raw data for a portion of the global temperature > record, thus destroying the integrity of the IPCC assessments and any > other work that treats the UK Jones-Wigley global temperature data > record as scientifically legitimate. I have attached the petition in > PDF, with a statements by CEI and Michaels. > > The story was reported in Environment & Energy Daily yesterday (below). > They called me for it, presumably because I am on their call list as > someone who gets in the face of the global warming disinformation > campaign, among other things. I hit CEI, but I don't have a technical > response to their allegations.
OTHER: 0926010576.txt * Mann: working towards a common goal 1189722851.txt * Jones: “try and change the Received date!” 0924532891.txt * Mann vs. CRU 0847838200.txt * Briffa & Yamal 1996: “too much growth in recent years makes it difficult to derive a valid age/growth curve” 0926026654.txt * Jones: MBH dodgy ground 1225026120.txt * CRU’s truncated temperature curve 1059664704.txt * Mann: dirty laundry 1062189235.txt * Osborn: concerns with MBH uncertainty 0926947295.txt * IPCC scenarios not supposed to be realistic 12
0938018124.txt * Mann: “something else” causing discrepancies 0939154709.txt * Osborn: we usually stop the series in 1960 0933255789.txt * WWF report: beef up if possible 0998926751.txt * “Carefully constructed” model scenarios to get “distinguishable results” 0968705882.txt * CLA: “IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science but production of results” 1075403821.txt * Jones: Daly death “cheering news” 1029966978.txt * Briffa – last decades exceptional, or not? 1092167224.txt * Mann: “not necessarily wrong, but it makes a small difference” (factor 1.29) 1188557698.txt * Wigley: “Keenan has a valid point” 1118949061.txt * we’d like to do some experiments with different proxy combinations 1120593115.txt * I am reviewing a couple of papers on extremes, so that I can refer to them in the chapter for AR4
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.