Mann: “Its (sic) hard to imagine what sort of comparison wouldn’t be deceptive.”
The e-mails are below.
###
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 18:06, Michael Mann wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> thanks for the comments. well, ok. but this is the full CMIP3
> ensemble, so at least the plot is sampling the range of choices
> regarding if and how indirect effects are represented, what the cloud
> radiative feedback & sensitivity is, etc. across the modeling
> community. I’m not saying that these things necessarily cancel out
> (after all, there is an interesting and perhaps somewhat disturbing
> compensation between indirect aerosol forcing and sensitivity across
> the CMIP3 models that defies the assumption of independence), but if
> showing the full spread from CMIP3 is deceptive, its hard to imagine
> what sort of comparison wouldn’t be deceptive (your point re MAGICC
> notwithstanding),
>
> perhaps Gavin has some further comments on this (it is his plot after
> all),
>
> mike
>
> On Oct 14, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Tom Wigley wrote:
> > Mike,
> >
> > The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical
> > runs with PCM look as though they match observations — but the
> > match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low
> > climate sensitivity — compensating errors. In my (perhaps too
> > harsh)
> > view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model
> > results by individual authors and by IPCC. This is why I still use
> > results from MAGICC to compare with observed temperatures. At least
> > here I can assess how sensitive matches are to sensitivity and
> > forcing assumptions/uncertainties.
> >
> > Tom.
> > +++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > Michael Mann wrote:
> > > thanks Tom,
> > > I’ve taken the liberty of attaching a figure that Gavin put
> > > together the other day (its an update from a similar figure he
> > > prepared for an earlier RealClimate post. see:
> > > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktonsdeliberate-
manipulation/). It is indeed worth a thousand words, and drives home
Tom’s point below. We’re planning on doing a post on this shortly, but would be
nice to see the Sep. HadCRU numbers first,
> > > mike
> > > On Oct 14, 2009, at 3:01 AM, Tom Wigley wrote:
> > > > Dear all,
> > > > At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the
> > > > recent
> > > > lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to
> > > > look at
> > > > the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic
> > > > trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second
> > > > is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the
> > > > observed data.
> > > > Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The
> > > > second
> > > > method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.
> > > > These sums complement Kevin’s energy work.
> > > > Kevin says … “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”. I
> > > > do not
> > > > agree with this.
> > > > Tom.
> > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > Kevin Trenberth wrote:
> > > > > 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
We have a situation where good people are held hostage to very bad ideas, and I for one think we should honor the goodness in man and let actions be questions for the law. Where everyone else is let free. Manipulation can happen to us all.
It doesn’t really seem like Mann admits anything. Quite the opposite. He’s saying he’s presented the data as transparently as is possible.
Some interesting exchanges. Note the concern at just 2 days of weather.
I agree with Mark that Mann does not really admit anything. In any case, his statement is conditional, namely “…IF showing the full spread from CMIP3 is deceptive, its hard to imagine what sort of comparison wouldn’t be deceptive.” (my emphasis). He does not admit that showing the full spread of CMIP3 is deceptive, but he moots that if showing that full spread is deceptive then it is difficult to imagine any other form of presentatiob that would not also be deceptive.
This was in the previous releases, complete with Gavin responding to Tom Wigley. The E-mail chain is titled “BBC U-turn on climate” and is E-mail number 125555886.
“The first is to look at the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data. Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second
method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.”
That says it all right there! He’s looking for methods to alter the data in a way that results in apparent significant warming. They don’t want results that “…show that what we are seeing is not unusual”.
Alarm .. catastrophe .. that is the message they are trying to communicate.
These are not scientists .. these people are propagandists.
I have to agree w/ the others here, Mann’s comment is not an indictment, it’s a concession that if this appears deceptive, then most everything else would as well.
Tom Wigley’s comments should be viewed w/ concern, just how much is he trying to forcehis viewpoint?
But it’s the first guy’s claim that is the biggest concern: “surely the data must be wrong”? Relaly? Models are to be driven by data, not data selected if it follows a model. If these data are wrong, then what does he base any of his hypotheses on? That’s the biggest indictment in this whole exchange.
We now have at least sixteen (16) years of no global warming, despite a steady rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2. NONE of the climate models predicted this, therefore they are all wrong. Yet national policy is made based on these failed models.
Since 2000, more than $100 BILLION has been paid out in federal grants to ‘study climate change’. With so much loot flooding academia, there is tremendous pressure to not rock the boat by admitting that everything being currently observed is due to natural climate variability. The climate always changes, naturally, and the current climate is very benign by the standards of the Holocene. The minuscule 0.8ºC change over the past 150 years is almost unprecedented; in the past the global temperature has changed by more than ten degrees in a few decades.
The “carbon” scam is making plenty of folks very rich — at the direct expense of hard-bitten taxpayers, and of the poor, who bear the brunt of the resulting skyrocketing energy costs, and higher food prices. Today’s climate alarmism is making 1930′s-style Eugenics look like an Eagle Scout project.
Michael Mann is just a short version of George Soros, herding his fellow jews into rail cars for his personal self-aggrandizement. S’truth. People are literally dying as a direct result of the climate scare. But demonizing “carbon” is the narrative, and so any other views are squelched by the complicit media.
It is my information and belief that Michael Mann is a liar, a fraud, and a celebrity-seeking attention-grabbing thief. Where your Nobel Prize, Mike? This consensus mess is not science; this is a bunch of self-satified siloed eggheads mutually feeding off of their self-induced delusions and fantasies. This is a faux solution looking for a faux problem, and the solution differs for the co-conspirators. They all mean to do me and mine harm. The “Scientists” have admitted to knowing nothing about climate and weather except how to manipulate models of models of models of bad data to give the appearance of intelligence and gravitas, stealing billions of taxpayer dollars to continue their snake oil business. The Marxist Media complex has their Armageddon fear package to sell and will shill any lie, deception, or invention to keep the anxiety and urgency on center camera and . The Education Mind Controllers pump their Godless Religion and worship of Gaia into soft young minds, filling them with guilt, shame, hate, and other emotion-based non-thinking about their world’s condition. The Socialist Politicians use their Imaginary Climate Crisis to grab more power, crush more freedoms, impose more punishments, extract more money. The Carbon Exchangers extort unholy amounts of capital from economies with the willing participation of those paid off with the extortion money. The EcoCrazies hit the streets in their rainbow hues enraged at The Producers who provide their comforts from Earth’s treacherous weather and who power their space-age conveniences; they are oh so sanctimonious in their conspicuous consumption (Al Gore, ad nauseum). We Common Tax-Paying Carbon Consumers become serfs to all of Them because Our’s is the biggest and easiest pocket to pick, since We have the least power over Our lives, and the noose has long been tightened around Our energy-consuming necks. Good husbandry of Earth and its resources is common sense; all this other stuff is fascism and tyranny.
The lines for a bloody war have been drawn, and I wouldn’t want to be one of the hockey-stick lovers when The Grid shuts down due to Their policies and actions. There are millions of Me out here who want to take Your h-e-double hockey sticks and stick them up Your sigmoids, along with a large lump of lignite coal (that’s the low quality coal – We’re saving the anthracite to re-fire some power plants after the reboot and stave off the next Ice Age). Please refer to “Gimme Back My Bullets” by Lynyrd Skynyrd to understand the depth of contempt in Bitter Clinger Land for Climatists.
p.s. I worked as an environment biologist at locations such as Cape Canaveral decades ago, taught at the university level, and then went to medical school. Retiring from the medical field this year. From 80 year old actor Michael Caine: “The best part about getting older is you know everything. And the worst part is dealing with people who don’t know anything.”