It's all over but for the sweating?

[Xist]

When I was in Afghanistan I read nearly every novel that I could find, since I had not yet discovered this site. I would shoot my memory for treason if I could. I just remember one story about Methane clathrate, there was some giant deposit and someone set up a refinery on some tropical island. It was a silly novel, so of course the fate of the world was on the line, but my immediate reaction to the methane hydrate reference was momentary panic. This is what I get for not bringing both my Zzzquil and melatonin on this family vacation.

I guess that I can do some schoolwork in the dark at 03.

[Arragonis]

Looks like the next batch of emails from CRU is out

- Bishop Hill blog - Climategate 3.0

It's time to tie up loose ends and dispel some of the speculation surrounding the Climategate affair.

Indeed, it's singular "I" this time. After certain career developments I can no longer use the papal plural ;-)

If this email seems slightly disjointed it's probably my linguistic background and the problem of trying to address both the wider audience (I expect this will be partially reproduced sooner or later) and the email recipients (whom I haven't decided yet on).

The "all.7z" password is [redacted]

DO NOT PUBLISH THE PASSWORD. Quote other parts if you like.

Releasing the encrypted archive was a mere practicality. I didn't want to keep the emails lying around.

I prepared CG1 & 2 alone. Even skimming through all 220.000 emails would have taken several more months of work in an increasingly unfavorable environment.

Dumping them all into the public domain would be the last resort. Majority of the emails are irrelevant, some of them probably sensitive and socially damaging.

To get the remaining scientifically (or otherwise) relevant emails out, I ask you to pass this on to any motivated and responsible individuals who could volunteer some time to sift through the material for eventual release.

Filtering\redacting personally sensitive emails doesn't require special expertise.

I'm not entirely comfortable sending the password around unsolicited, but haven't got better ideas at the moment. If you feel this makes you seemingly "complicit" in a way you don't like, don't take action.

I don't expect these remaining emails to hold big surprises. Yet it's possible that the most important pieces are among them. Nobody on the planet has held the archive in plaintext since CG2.

That's right; no conspiracy, no paid hackers, no Big Oil. The Republicans didn't plot this. USA politics is alien to me, neither am I from the UK. There is life outside the Anglo-American sphere.

If someone is still wondering why anyone would take these risks, or sees only a breach of privacy here, a few words...

The first glimpses I got behind the scenes did little to garner my trust in the state of climate science -- on the contrary. I found myself in front of a choice that just might have a global impact.

Briefly put, when I had to balance the interests of my own safety, privacy\career of a few scientists, and the well-being of billions of people living in the coming several decades, the first two weren't the decisive concern.

It was me or nobody, now or never. Combination of several rather improbable prerequisites just wouldn't occur again for anyone else in the foreseeable future. The circus was about to arrive in Copenhagen. Later on it could be too late.

Most would agree that climate science has already directed where humanity puts its capability, innovation, mental and material "might". The scale will grow ever grander in the coming decades if things go according to script. We're dealing with $trillions and potentially drastic influence on practically everyone.

Wealth of the surrounding society tends to draw the major brushstrokes of a newborn's future life. It makes a huge difference whether humanity uses its assets to achieve progress, or whether it strives to stop and reverse it, essentially sacrificing the less fortunate to the climate gods.

We can't pour trillions in this massive hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor and pretend it's not away from something and someone else.

If the economy of a region, a country, a city, etc. deteriorates, what happens among the poorest? Does that usually improve their prospects? No, they will take the hardest hit. No amount of magical climate thinking can turn this one upside-down.

It's easy for many of us in the western world to accept a tiny green inconvenience and then wallow in that righteous feeling, surrounded by our "clean" technology and energy that is only slightly more expensive if adequately subsidized.

Those millions and billions already struggling with malnutrition, sickness, violence, illiteracy, etc. don't have that luxury. The price of "climate protection" with its cumulative and collateral effects is bound to destroy and debilitate in great numbers, for decades and generations.

Conversely, a "game-changer" could have a beneficial effect encompassing a similar scope.

If I had a chance to accomplish even a fraction of that, I'd have to try. I couldn't morally afford inaction. Even if I risked everything, would never get personal compensation, and could probably never talk about it with anyone.

I took what I deemed the most defensible course of action, and would do it again (although with slight alterations -- trying to publish something truthful on RealClimate was clearly too grandiose of a plan ;-).

Even if I have it all wrong and these scientists had some good reason to mislead us (instead of making a strong case with real data) I think disseminating the truth is still the safest bet by far.

Big thanks to Steve and Anthony and many others. My contribution would never have happened without your work (whether or not you agree with the views stated).

Oh, one more thing. I was surprised to learn from a "progressive" blog, corroborated by a renowned "scientist", that the releases were part of a coordinated campaign receiving vast amounts of secret funding from shady energy industry groups.

I wasn't aware of the arrangement but warmly welcome their decision to support my project. For that end I opened a bitcoin address: 1HHQ36qbsgGZWLPmiUjYHxQUPJ6EQXVJFS.

More seriously speaking, I accept, with gratitude, modest donations to support The (other) Cause. The address can also serve as a digital signature to ward off those identity thefts which are part of climate scientists' repertoire of tricks these days.

Keep on the good work. I won't be able to use this email address for long so if you reply, I can't guarantee reading or answering. I will several batches, to anyone I can think of.

Over and out.


Mr. FOIA

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

I'm interested in following this, if others are game - CO2 has risen in a straight line (more or less) during measured periods (which is only since WW2 by instrumentation, estimates and proxies before that) but temps haven't...

Well, to start out with, you're wrong about CO2 having risen in a straight line. See here: Scripps CO2 Program - Keeling Curve Lessons Notice that a) over the whole period, it's not straight, but an increasing curve; and b) there's lots of short-term variation, primarily a pronounced annual cycle due to northern hemisphere seasons.

Now if we didn't have increasing anthropogenic CO2, wouldn't we be seeing that annual variation imposed on a straight (and flat) line? So it is with temperature: we have steadily increasing temperature due to anthropogenic CO2, imposed on natural variations from a multitude of causes. Thus picking out the CO2 signal from the rest is just a matter of statistics, if you're into math, or eyeballing any record of temperatures for the last century or so. Of course that requires the ability to see what is actually there, rather than what you want to see.

Or if temperature graphs don't do it for you, why not pay attention to plants? As for instance this, in recent news: NASA Visible Earth: Northern Greening Or a multitude of other records, from Kyoto's cherry trees to USDA climate zones.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Well, to start out with, you're wrong about CO2 having risen in a straight line. See here: Scripps CO2 Program - Keeling Curve Lessons Notice that a) over the whole period, it's not straight, but an increasing curve; and b) there's lots of short-term variation, primarily a pronounced annual cycle due to northern hemisphere seasons.

An explanation to my question was made earlier, but to pick out a detail in this no I don't see an increasing curve - I see (via eyeballing) a line before and after the period of 1990-1995 where the increase becomes less steep and then returns the previous trend.



I'm sure someone with an idea of cherry picking could extrapolate trends from different start and end periods which could either suggest we are doomed or suggest nothing is wrong.

But this is one place on the planet, isn't it ?

[NeilBlanchard]

It's a curve. Hold a piece of paper or another straight edge up to the image and you will see that you can touch the bottom and the top, but not the middle.

It is just one place, but it is a place well away from any major sources, and it is one of the best places to get a good accurate indication of the overall average. Do you think that they are not measuring carbon dioxide anywhere else? Really?

[TheEnemy]

Aragonis: Yes it is an increasing curve and not a straight line. Its just hard to see it straight out by eyeballing due to the shorter term variation.

[TheEnemy]

State of the Climate | Global Analysis - February 2013

•The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for February 2013 tied with 2003 as the ninth warmest on record, at 0.57°C (1.03°F) above the 20th century average of 12.1°C (53.9°F).

January was also 9th warmest.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Do you think that they are not measuring carbon dioxide anywhere else? Really?

Also, the atmospheric mixing time is on the order of 1-2 years or less, so that a molecule of CO2 generated in Hawai'i has an equal chance of being found anywhere on the planet after that time. Within a hemisphere, it's on the order of 3 months. So basically any place that does not have a strong local signal is as good as any other.

[Arragonis]

I've cleaned my glasses, and yes I agree - an interesting take on it too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-nsU_DaIZE#

!

[NeilBlanchard]

A little more carbon dioxide is fine, but a lot more is not fine. The tropic zone has been expanded by about 2 degrees latitude (in both directions) and higher temps and drought have strongly negative effects once a threshold has been passed. Different plants have different thresholds.

Planting zones have moved northward. Plants can't migrate, and even if they could, the soil conditions and the pollinators would not be there.