Sunday, December 6, 2009

More suprising CRU e-mails.

Three CRU e-mails, of which I was not aware so far. Read it carefully. What is it Ed Cook, Tom Wigley and Mike Mann are saying?

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=345&filename=1059664704.txt
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=440&filename=1098472400.txt
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=356&filename=1062592331.txt

Hans von Storch
at

8 comments:

  1. Manneke PisDecember 7, 2009 at 2:26 AM

    Are silly comments allowed in this heated debate?

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousDecember 7, 2009 at 4:36 AM

    Dr. Storch it deals with Steve McIntyre and his work on MBH 98-99 at least in the first and thrid emails, not sure on the second. Here is a link to a post that Steve made on this, appropiatly enough it entiled Mikes "Dirty Laundry" from MBH98-99.

    http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/dirty-laundry/

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousDecember 7, 2009 at 9:14 AM

    Jones in his own words: "This is all gut feeling, no science, but years of experience of dealing with global scales and varaibility."

    ReplyDelete
  4. dougTDecember 7, 2009 at 11:26 AM

    Glad to see your site. Thank you for your contributions here and elsewhere. They are much appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousDecember 7, 2009 at 2:37 PM

    Thank you for your work and contributions.

    ps
    Well I just previewed this and the Word Verification was: leaksin.

    I'm not making this up.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jean SDecember 7, 2009 at 2:52 PM

    The first one is easy. Tim Osborne tried to figure out MBH99 confidence intervals. Mike is "helping" with his usual verbal nonsense along with sending the residuals. I find it pretty funny that he is complaining that he can not find his 1820 (!!! the first step!) residuals...

    From the leaked documents, you can find Osborne's "final report". He did not fully succeed either. No one has.

    ReplyDelete
  7. bernieDecember 7, 2009 at 3:13 PM

    I assume the first two email strings support Ed Cook's colourful summary:
    "Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit about (symbol for Less Than)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 (symbol for Greater Than)100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know fuck-all)."

    Bottom line is that outside of the surface temperature records with their own uncertainties and limitations, we know little of the global temperature and slightly more about the extra-tropical NH temperatures.
    If so, the tuning of the GCMs is highly constrained and do cover known variations of the MWP and LIA.
    Assuming that you have an answer, how did I do?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hans von StorchDecember 7, 2009 at 9:28 PM

    Thanks to all of you for your helpful comments. I certainly do not know more than you, but significantly less about the background of these communications. I came across these mails, because a journalist asked.

    Edu and started this blog just yesterday, so please be patient with us, when the business is a bit clumsy in the first time. Any advice of how to do it better, will help. -- Hans

    ReplyDelete