More "ClimageGate"???

[JohnWho]

Possibly, "ClimateGate2" (only counting file releases) -

a new, approximately 173MB zipped file has been made available on a number of "climate" sites in their various most recent (at the time) active thread:

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/11/2...s-arrived/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/21/hu...more-51537

and more.

File, at least for a while, is here:

http://files.sinwt.ru/download.php?file=25FOIA2011.zip


If authentic, hold on for another bumpy ride.

[Questioning_Climate]

The linked server appears to be done. Has anyone got a copy that they can put on a server please? Possibly put it on a torrent?

[Goose52]

Yipee!!! I had so much fun with the last batch!!

[Questioning_Climate]

Climategate2 torrent link: http://tinyurl.com/d9rdzhv
Climategate2 download: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ROCGBR37

Now all we need is the 'pass-phrase' for the archive. Does anyone know it?

[Sunsettommy]

(11-22-2011 10:18 AM)Questioning_Climate Wrote:  The linked server appears to be done. Has anyone got a copy that they can put on a server please? Possibly put it on a torrent?

This LINK has all the links for downloading the stuff.

[Sunsettommy]

From HERE at the Reference Frame.I find this part especially interesting:

/// Temperature Reconstructions ///

<1583> Wilson:

any method that incorporates all forms of uncertainty and error will undoubtedly result in reconstructions with wider error bars than we currently have. These many be more honest, but may not be too helpful for model comparison attribution studies. We need to be careful with the wording I think.

<4165> Jones:

what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.


<3994> Mitchell/MetO

Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems to me that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no


<4241> Wilson:

I thought I'd play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I could 'reconstruct' northern hemisphere temperatures. [...] The reconstructions clearly show a 'hockey-stick' trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.


<3373> Bradley:

I'm sure you agree--the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don't want to be associated with that 2000 year "reconstruction".


<4758> Osborn:

Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the middle of his calibration, when we're throwing out all post-1960 data 'cos the MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data 'cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it!


<0886> Esper:

Now, you Keith complain about the way we introduced our result, while saying it is an important one. [...] the IPCC curve needs to be improved according to missing long-term declining trends/signals, which were removed (by dendrochronologists!) before Mann merged the local records together. So, why don't you want to let the result into science?


<4369> Cook:

I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead.


<5055> Cook:

One problem is that he [Mann] will be using the RegEM method, which provides no better diagnostics (e.g. betas) than his original method. So we will still not know where his estimates are coming from.

==================================================

[strogoff]

Hi!! Here we go again

A friend blogger in Spain has transformed the archives into pdfs that are easier to read; maybe you find them useful:

http://elescepticoclimatico.blogspot.com...o-pdf.html

There´s also a searchable database (I ignore the source):

http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=4

Cheers