Tag Archive for Climatic Research Unit

Climatic Research Unit Documents: European climate policy adaptation and mitigation strategies

Climate change presents a new set of challenges for the development of public policy. This is because the time-scales involved between policy implementation and desired outcome are much longer than in other policy areas; because many areas of policy planning need simultaneously to be addressed, therefore placing a greater demand on the integration of policy across different realms; and because the truly global nature of the problem requires national or regional policies to be designed within some framework of global strategy.

Climatic Research Unit Emails: “even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

The jumps when the data input change stand out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice. The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

Climatic Research Unit Strategic Review – Summary of External Input

The relatively high response rate and the considerable thought that most respondents put into answering the questions suggests that people feel positively about CRU and its future. This is also reflected in the overall nature of the responses – which indicate that CRU is widely and highly regarded. Taking all responses together, the full range of CRU’s past and current activities is acknowledged. The responses are thus largely reassuring and do not contain any major surprises so far as our current strengths and weaknesses are concerned – although a number of interesting insights require some thought.

Climate Research Unit Documents: Confidential Fabrication of Research Report

The Division for Research received an allegation against Wei-Chyung Wang, for fabrication and misrepresentation of research results as covered by the University at Albany Policy and Procedures on Misconduct in Research and Scholarship.

It is alleged that Dr. Wang fabricated and misrepresented research results in two research papers he co-authored

> Jones P.D., Groisman P.Y., Coughian M., Plummer N., Wang w.-C., Karl T.R. (1990), “Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land”, Nature,
347: 169—172

> Wang W.-C., Zeng Z., Karl T.R. (1990), “Urban heat islands in China”, Geophysical Research Letters, 17: 2377-2380

Climatic Research Unit Emails: “You are asking people to prostitute themselves”

Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible. No scientist who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever endorse any statement unless they have examined the issue fully themselves. You are asking people to prostitute themselves by doing just this! I fear that some will endorse your letter, in the mistaken belief that you are making a balanced and knowledgeable assessment of the science — when, in fact, you are presenting a flawed view that neither accords with IPCC nor with the bulk of the scientific and economic literature on the subject.

Climatic Research Unit Documents: IPCC Working Group Fourth Assessment Expert Review

I have four chief concerns with this chapter. First, there are numerous important references left out, and an over-emphasis on papers by the authors themselves, which do not accurately reflect the communities’ view. In general, the certainty with which this chapter presents our understanding of abrupt climate change is overstated. There is confusion between hypothesis and evidence throughout the chapter, and a great deal of confusion on the difference between an abrupt “climate change” and possible, hypothetical cuases of such climate changes (e.g. Heinrich events). Second, the use of the terms “very likely”, “likely”, etc. are not in conformance with the rest of the IPCC document — some things that are virtually certain are listed as “likely” and mere hypotheses, largely untested, are listed as “very likely”. This carelessness does not add credibility to this chapter. Third, extensive reference is made to a very few recent papers that have not yet been thoroughly considered by the scientific community, and whose relevance to future climate is, in my judgement, greatly overstated.

Climatic Research Unit Emails: “Mike’s Nature trick” to “hide the decline”

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.

Climatic Research Unit Emails: “I pulled every trick out of my sleeve”

I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. It was pretty funny though – I told Malcolm
what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating the response functions – he laughed and said that’s what he thought at first also. The data’s tempting but there’s too much variation even within stands. I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have – they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian). I think I’ll have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.