Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 66 Votes - 3.06 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
When Results Go Bad …
11-29-2009, 08:15 PM
Post: #1
When Results Go Bad …
From this LINK

Watts Up With That?

11-29-2009

EXCERPT:

Guest post by Willis Eschenbach

One of the claims in this hacked CRU email saga goes something like “Well, the scientists acted like jerks, but that doesn’t affect the results, it’s still warming.”

I got intrigued by one of the hacked CRU emails, from the Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth to Professor Wibjorn Karlen. In it, Professor Karlen asked some very pointed questions about the CRU and IPCC results. He got incomplete, incorrect and very misleading answers. Here’s the story, complete with pictures. I have labeled the text to make it clear who is speaking, including my comments.

From Jones and Trenberth to Wibjorn Karlen, 17 Sep 2008 (email # 1221683947).

[Trenberth]Hi Wibjorn

It appears that your concern is mainly with the surface temperature record, and my co lead author in IPCC, Phil Jones, is best able to address those questions. However the IPCC only uses published data plus their extensions and in our Chapter the sources of the data are well documented, along with their characteristics. I offer a few more comments below (my comments are limited as I am on vacation and away from my office).

[Karlen to Trenberth]Uppsala 17 September 2008,

Dear Kevin,

In short, the problem is that I cannot find data supporting the temperature curves in IPCC and also published in e.g. Forster, P. et al. 2007: Assessing uncertainty in climate simulation. Nature 4: 63-64.
[url=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/when-results-go-bad/#more-13373]
================================================
I thought this section was revealing,to show the AGW mind state of Mr.Trenberth:

Quote:[Trenberth] You can object all you like but you are not looking at the evidence and

you need to have a basis, which you have not established. You seem to

doubt that CO2 has increased and that it is a greenhouse gas and you are

very wrong. But of course there is a lot of variability and looking at

one spot narrowly is not the way to see the big picture.

This is part of what he was responding to,as written by Wibjorn Karlen:

Quote:It is also difficult to find evidence of a drastic warming outside urban areas in a large part of the world outside Europe. However the increase in temperature in Central Europe may be because the whole area is urbanized (see e.g. Bidwell, T., 2004: Scotobiology – the biology of darkness. Global change News Letter No. 58 June, 2004).

So, I find it necessary to object to the talk about a scaring temperature increase because of increased human release of CO2. In fact, the warming seems to be limited to densely populated areas. The often mentioned correlation between temperature and CO2 is not convincing. If there is a factor explaining a major part of changes in the temperature, it is solar irradiation. There are numerous studies demonstrating this correlation but papers are not accepted by IPCC. Most likely, any reduction of CO2 release will have no effect whatsoever on the temperature (independent of how
expensive).

Big Grin

It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)