Climategate 2.0 Phil Jones Uses Same Computer Model For Weather And Climate

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
last point.

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

Phil Jones


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
([1] 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.
Best Regards
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.


Ed Addis
Yahoo! Mail is the world’s favourite email. Don’t settle for less, [2]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

About Tory Aardvark

Climate Realist, Conservative and proud NRA member. I don't buy into the Man Made Global Warming Scam, science is never settled. @ToryAardvark on Twitter ToryAardvark on Facebook

Posted on November 23, 2011, in Anthropogenic Global Warming, Church Of Climatology, Climate Change, Global Warming, Green Lies and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 9 Comments.

  1. Tony i’m sure you are aware that the quote in your picture is taken from the daily mail when they quote mined an interview by the BBC.

    I’m sure you are also aware that the other 10 questions supported global warming.

    I’m sure you are also aware that “the warming is not statistically significant” means something different than “there is no warming”.

    I’m sure you are also aware what statically significant means.

    I’m sorry but if you going to headline your artilcle with a complete fabrication, lie and propaganistic quote mine. How do you expect me to trust the rest of it?

    • I’m sure you name is sphincter567 and you miss spelled it here along with the rest of that BS that comes from uranus.

      • shouting like a petulant child does not make it BS it makes you a petulant child. How about you prove me wrong and I’ll admit i made a mistake like an adult.

        Or you can continue snickering at the word Uranus like a first grader. I won’t hold my breath waiting for your response.

  2. Who effing cares for your views Spector, you are so bigoted and now fighting for a lost cause. If you intend to split hairs all the time, it shows a reluctance to see the whole head.
    AGW is a fraud, repeat fraud. The Durban conference is doomed to failure, and Google
    has just withdrawn from their solar thermal project.

    The world can’t afford these expensive projects when their is no climate change emergency.
    I’d rather send agricultural specialists to countries who are having problems environmentally.
    With carbon credits now almost worthless, why throw good money after bad. I certainly can’t see any security giving monies to those frauds in the UN to distribute in any way they choose. At our expense, when nothing so far has proven to be true. wake up. The carbon bubble is about to burst in a big and nasty way.

    • With respect Bush bunny how Have acted Bigoted? At best I have called the people calling me silly names childish. because it is.

      Me looking up information and double checking sources is called being interested in the ENTIRE topic. Not just providing a one sided view point. I believe people should have an informed opinion.

      I respect your opinion Bush bunny however, you should check yourself for bigoted behavior. You are the one here dismissing anything and anyone even remotely connected to things you don’t like. You have lumped, AWG, Windmills and god knows what else in to one giant monster when they should all be treated as separate issues.

      You are also the one that is supporting quote mining and out right lies about people. No matter what your personal view point is it does not justify lying about what is happening on a specific topic.

      However, maybe I’m wrong about you.
      Do you believe that AWG is nothing more than a massive world wide conspiracy? Because frankly if you do I don’t think you understand the pure scope of what you are suggesting.

      Do you believe that several million people are part of a massive world wide conspiracy involving over 200+ countries several thousand political parties and people from all types of cultural and economic backgrounds have falsified several billion points of data in a consistent fashion over the past 40 years. While at the same time keeping this a secret? (It is more probable that big foot exists than this vast conspiracy of fraud that you are proposing)

      As to the google withdraw. I provided a response in another post however it is under “moderation” I presume because I provided links.

      So I will provide the important part here.
      Long story short Google’s research (not construction) focused on the wrong parts of renewable technology improvement and other companies had a far greater competitive advantage so they dropped it.

      “It seems that part of the issue here is that back in 2007, Google dug into technology that didn’t fare so well. (Look, we’ll just say “like Solyndra” so nobody else has to.) A lot of its money and research effort went into solar power projects, like solar towers. Since then, silicon has become so freaking cheap that photovoltaics just make more sense, and planned utility-scale CSP projects have switched over to solar panels. RE<C also focused on geothermal power, which is a long way off from wide-spread use."

      I'd provide the links but it appears to put me under moderation.

  3. Tory, typo. ‘… when there is no climate change emergency’ Adapt is the word, and do it quickly and look after our own, but assist undeveloped countries individually. Maybe send Mann and Gore and Jonesy, so they can spread their gospel to those who are genuinly not adapting well and need better sustainable agricultural production to feed themselves.

    What is the phrase, forgive me if I corrupt it.”…I can give you a fish, but ’tis better for me to teach you how to fish…’

  1. Pingback: Climategate 2.0: All new emails in time for Climategate’s 2nd anniversary! —

  2. Pingback: The Chris Huhne Promise Your Energy Bills Will Rise Every Year To 2020 « Tory Aardvark

  3. Pingback: sourcing in china

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: