Dedicated to the balanced discussion of global warming
carbon offset / trading greenhouse kyoto climate model Inconvenient Truth bio fuel ipcc Glacier

ClimateGate UK climate scientist to temporarily step down

Phil Jones, the director of the CRU at East Anglia University, has decided to step down as the investigation into his department continues. From the East Anglia website:

Professor Phil Jones has today announced that he will stand aside as Director of the Climatic Research Unit until the completion of an independent Review resulting from allegations following the hacking and publication of emails from the Unit.

Professor Jones said: “What is most important is that CRU continues its world leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible. After a good deal of consideration I have decided that the best way to achieve this is by stepping aside from the Director’s role during the course of the independent review and am grateful to the University for agreeing to this. The Review process will have my full support.”

ClimateGate Who’s Who

The names in the leaked emails of East Anglia CRU are probably not familiar with many readers of this site. While most know of Mr. Al Gore, former Vice President of the United States and Nobel prize winner, and James Hansen of NASA, few scientists in this field get much notoriety.

MagicJavaTV put out a slide show in the form of a YouTube video.  It is a great overview of the people involved in this recent revelation.

ClimateGate Who’s Who

Michael Mann to be investigated over CRU emails

It appears that Michael Mann, the Associate Professor of Meteorology from Penn State, will be investigated regarding concerns that were brought up after the release of the East Anglia CRU emails and documents.

When I first saw the release for this investigation, it seemed a bit suspicious. It did not contain any formatting, contact information, or logos.  However, I have confirmed that, as of this writing, the link to the announcement is live on the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences website (see Climate Change issue in the right column).

I am a bit skeptical that this investigation will be fair and complete but at least it is a first step to getting to the bottom of the issue.

Scientist calls for barring Mann, Jones, and Rahmstorf

Dr. Eduardo Zorita has called for the barring of several of the people who recently had their emails released to the public. Dr. Zorita is not a typical “denier” but rather a paleoclimatologist from GKSS who has published many works within the field. Because I value how Dr. Zorita explains his position I re-publish it here without edit or further editorial comment. I sincerely hope that his fears that “my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication” but I fear that folks that sympathize with people like Mann, Jones and Rahmstorf could, very likely, be very cruel to those that question members of their club.

Interview with both sides regarding stolen emails

More interviews on the current discussion regarding the stolen emails from East Anglia. You can read more here.

Professors Singer and Watson on East Anglia CRU stolen emails

Climate change sceptic Professor Fred Singer, and Professor Bob Watson, the chief scientific advisor at the department of the environment debate the issues over the stolen emails from the East Anglia server.

Thank you to Daily Politics for initially showing this video.  You can go there for a more complete interview.

Dr. Ball’s thoughts on CRU emails

This is an excellent analysis of the inherent problems that have been exposed by the stolen emails from CRU. While the stealing of the emails is a crime that must be punished, the conclusion from these emails is very disturbing. It does not automatically follow that global warming is real or false but it does make one wonder about the validity of the work done.

Climate Change Bombshell: Dr. Tim Ball on the hacked CRU emails

No scientist had email stolen from East Anglia!

Most people that read this site have likely heard of the emails that were stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU). I would like to offer a few of my thoughts on the subject.

First, catch the people responsible for breaking into the property of the University of East Anglia. Prosecute the offenders to the fullest extent of the law. I am not versed in the laws of the UK but I would assume that each document and email that was illegally stolen from those servers would be an individual count of theft, so the parties involved would be liable for several thousand counts of theft. No one should ever break the law to further their political interest (and remember there was nothing purely scientific in these emails – they are simply emails with opinions and, as such, are not facts). Breaking the law is simply not a way to discuss the scientific relevance of information. So just as I condemn Mr. Al Gore, former Vice President of the US, for suggesting civil disobedience, I condemn the stealing of information from the University.

A Tour of the Cryosphere 2009

I first saw this on Net-Cool which is a great site to subscribe to for finding really interesting things on the web.

This movie explains some of the reasons of concern for monitoring the increase in temperatures that we have felt since the 1960s.  It is very well done and enjoyable to watch.  Unlike An Inconvenient Truth, it admits that this is not pure imagery but some CGI has been done.

If you can handle the bandwidth, you will see better graphics here rather than watching the embedded YouTube video below.

Are the glaciers our fault?

I am often asked if the reduction of the size of glaciers is the fault of global warming. My standard answer is that I don’t know as the evidence is far from conclusive.

A case in point is a graph from the USGS fact sheet:

Two conclusions are fairly obvious from the above graph.  First, the size of glacier recession has been occurring almost since the time when we started measuring the size back in the late 50s.  The second is that the reduction seemed to increase rather rapidly in the late 80s and early 90s. If we draw a straight line to average the reduction from 1960 to 1975, we will see a totally different rate as compared to the line that averages 1980 to 2005.