UPDATE: New resources for viewing and obtaining the leaked Climate Research Unit leaked files:
See WikiLeaks for download locations.
Direct downloads: Sweden, U.S., Finland, Netherlands, Poland, Tonga, Europe (more locations at WikiLeaks).
Searchable database of the emails (likely does not contain all the files and may not contain all the document files).
—–
157 MB (uncompressed) worth of files which appear to have come from the Climate Research Unit (CMU) in the UK have been leaked online. The 62 MB compressed archive contains 1673 text files, 17 PDF documents and 49 Word documents. The total appears to be 4560 files in 103 folders, the sheer quantity of which seems to indicate that the data may be authentic. The news is not good for those supporting the theory that mad-made C02 is responsible for global warming.
The www is buzzing with discussions about the breech. Here’s a sample from Climate Audit.
Here are some quotes from emails:
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxx>
To: c.harpham@xxx
Subject: FW: Helpdesk query 1489: Hourly data have discontinuities at day joins
Date: Tue Nov 10 16:35:20 2009Can I have a straightforward answer to the following questions
1) Are the reconstructions sensitive to the removal of either the Yamal data
and Strip pine bristlecones, either when present singly or in combination?
2) Why these series, when incorporated with white noise as a background, can
still produce a Hockey-Stick shaped graph if they have, as you suggest, a low
individual weighting?
And once you have done this, please do me the courtesy of answering my
initial email.
Dr. D.R. Keiller
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxx>
To: ray bradley <rbradley@xxx>,mann@xxx, mhughes@xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx,t.osborn@xxxDear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.Cheers
Phil
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxx>
To: “Michael E. Mann” <mann@xxx>, “raymond s. bradley” <rbradley@xxx>
Subject: A couple of things
Date: Fri May 9 09:53:41 2008
Cc: “Caspar Ammann” <ammann@xxx>Mike, Ray, Caspar,
A couple of things – don’t pass on either.
1. Have seen you’re RC bet. Not entirely sure this is the right way to go,
but it will drum up some discussion.
Anyway Mike and Caspar have seen me present possible problems with the
SST data (in the 1940s/50s and since about 2000). The first of these will appear
in Nature on May 29. There should be a News and Views item with this article
by Dick Reynolds. The paper concludes by pointing out that SSTs now (or since
about 2000, when the effect gets larger) are likely too low. This likely won’t
get corrected quickly as it really needs more overlap to increase confidence.
Bottom line for me is that it appears SSTs now are about 0.1 deg C too cool
globally. Issue is that the preponderance of drifters now (which measure SST
better but between 0.1 and 0.2 lower than ships) mean anomalies are low
relative to the ship-based 1961-90 base.
This also means that the SST base the German modellers used in their runs
was likely too warm by a similar amount. This applies to all modellers, reanalyses etc.
There will be a lot of discussion of the global T series with people saying we can’t
even measure it properly now.[...]
2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but
this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim
have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we’ve found a wayaround this.[...]
Cheers
Phil
From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxx>
To: g.mcgregor@xxx
Subject: Re: JOC-08-0098 – International Journal of Climatology
Date: Tue May 6 09:19:06 2008[...]
At 03:32 06/05/2008, Ben Santer wrote:
Dear Glenn,
This is a little disappointing. We decided to submit our paper to IJoC in order to
correct serious scientific errors in the Douglass et al. IJoC paper. We believe that
there is some urgency here. Extraordinary claims are being made regarding the scientific
value of the Douglass et al. paper, in part by co-authors of that paper. One co-author
(S. Fred Singer) has used the findings of Douglass et al. to buttress his argument that
“Nature not CO2, rules the climate”. The longer such erroneous claims are made without
any form of scientific rebuttal, the more harm is caused.
“The longer such erroneous claims are made without any form of scientific rebuttal, the more harm is caused.” Might there be any validity to those “erroneous claims”…
- More Than 650 Scientists Dissent Over Warming Claim
- Global warming on other planets Mars, Jupiter, Triton, Neptune, Pluto, and others share the fate of Earth
- Dangerous Assumptions
- New storm on Jupiter hints at climate change
- Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth’s temperature
- Global Warming Detected on Triton
- Saturn’s Strangely Warm Moon
- Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists
- Mars ‘more active than suspected’
