Climategate 2.0 Phil Jones Uses Same Computer Model For Weather And Climate
Climategate 2.0 is proving to be more damaging than Climategate despite the usual suspects playing down the importance of Climategate 2.0 and trying the usual “nothing to see here” and saying the real crime is the hacking of UEA’s mail servers, which in no way detracts from the content and importance of the emails.
Despite what the warming alarmists would have us believe, when it suits their argument, weather and climate are not the same things, so it is hardly surprising to find out that junk scientist Phil Jones uses the same computer model for both as email 1840 clearly shows:
date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 00:30:15 +0100 (BST)
from: Ed Addis
subject: Re: Climate change
to: Phil Jones
Thanks for your reply Phil
It’s kind of you to take the time to answer some of these questions, but I notice that you
don’t attempt to answer the first one – the actual evidence for CO2 fuelled GW. Of course
we all know that computer models aren’t evidence. I’ve always understood that there is a
fundamental difference between weather and climate, so I’m quite surprised just to hear you
say that the same code is used for both types of model. For one thing, the time frames are
very different – I wouldn’t expect to be able to obtain meaningful predictions of climate
from a weather model or vice versa. In any event the predictions are only as good as the
underlying scientific understanding, which in my opinion – for all the alleged improvement
in weather forecasting – is still no better than rudimentary.
You’ll recall that I only said that the absorption bands are *near* saturation. I believe
that even the outer ones are partly saturated. The relationship between CO2 increase and
greenhouse forcing is very slow – logarithmic, I’ve read recently. Hardly anything to
panic about, particularly in the light of the historical evidence that CO2 has never caused
warming before – but I haven’t had time yet to look at your suggested reference yet on this
Particularly in the light of the historical evidence that CO2 has never caused warming before so why has CO2 changed it’s properties since 1960?
It’s the dogmatic, doom-laden nature of the media coverage of this that really irks, and I
feel that scientists like yourself should be injecting a note of moderation into the debate
rather than talking up scenarios that are not realistically predicated by the facts.
Fiscal and regulatory changes are being brought in as a result of speculatory ideas about
carbon emissions, and are not justifiable with the current state of factual evidence.
Phil Jones and real science the classic oxymoron.
The rest of the email makes fascinating reading with Ed Addis calling in to question Jones’s religious belief in CO2 caused Global Warming
I don’t think I’m going to convince you, but I’ll try briefly with a few points.
1. I’m sure you’ll agree that weather forecasts have improved over the last 30 years.
For the Hadley Centre model that produces the climate simulations, the code
is exactly the same as the weather model. Getting weather forecasts right is
down to the dynamics in the model, but the weather forecasters say that
some improvement has come from better thermodynamics, which has come
from the ‘climate part’ of the model.
2. It has been very warm in the UK over the past year. Part of this is
favourable circulation, but have you wondered why the sea temperatures
are so much warmer around our coasts?
As for the saturation of absorption bands I suggest you read Ch 2 of the
latest WG1 report from the IPCC. Only some bands are saturated.
The other chapters are useful reads as well – especially Ch 1, which shows
global temperatures since 1990 (the first report) and the projections for
global T made then and in subsequent reports.
The IPCC Chapters and SPM can be got from here
( http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/) but I’m sure you know this.
There are also links to answers to your 3rd question on our web site
(climate myths) and also on the New Scientist web site.
Finally what is going to convince you?
More warm years
More glacier retreat
More sea level rise
Less snow area in the NH
Less Arctic Sea Ice
The modellers can’t get these if they don’t increase the CO2, and
the increase in CO2 is clearly happening.
At 18:31 14/06/2007, Ed Addis wrote:
Just a quick note after hearing you on the BBC R4 Frontiers programme last night. I
wonder if you’d be kind enough to answer a couple of questions for me on this topic?
Firstly, could you please let me know what is this huge and conclusive accumulated body
of evidence, we hear so much about, that CO2 is causing warming? Obviously, we can’t
include the results from computer models as evidence, as these are just the results of
calculations based on the equations used to build the models and, as such, prove
nothing. So what actual hard physical evidence is there? Please note that I’m not
asking for evidence that warming is happening – only that increases in CO2 are causing
Secondly, you will of course know very well that the absorption bands of CO2 that power
the greenhouse effect are near saturation, so that adding more CO2 can make little
difference to greenhouse forcing. So, why do you climate scientists encourage all the
hysteria about carbon emissions/footprints etc? Why don’t you tell the media and the
politicians that CO2 is not really a problem?
Thirdly, you will of course also know that in the hundreds of thousands of years for
which records exist, the CO2 changes have always lagged the temperature changes, and so
cannot have caused them. Same question as above, really – what makes you think that
increases in CO2 are going to cause warming now, when they’ve never done so before? And
why, therefore, do you continue to push the idea that mankind’s emissions of CO2 are a
Hope you can find time to answer these – if so, you’ll be the only climate scientists
that I’ve asked who have.
Yahoo! Mail is the world’s favourite email. Don’t settle for less, sign up for your
free account today.
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email firstname.lastname@example.org
Posted on November 23, 2011, in Anthropogenic Global Warming, Church Of Climatology, Climate Change, Global Warming, Green Lies and tagged Climategate 2.0, CRU, Phil Jones. Bookmark the permalink. 9 Comments.