Dr Bulldog:
An Email from Climategate that Seems to Have Been Overlooked by Many
Hmmm, even I missed this one while trying to sift through all those emails:
H/T – HyperConservative
(From the searchable online database HERE)
From: gjjenkins@xxxxxxxxx.xxxTo: p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, deparker@xxxxxxxxx.xxxSubject: 1996 global temperaturesDate: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 11:23 +0000 (GMT)Cc: llivingston@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, djcarson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Phil
Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures,with early release of information (via Oz), “inventing” the Decembermonthly value, letters to Nature etc etc?
I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year,simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.
I have been discussing with David P and suggest the following:
1. By 20 Dec we will have land and sea data up to Nov
2. David (?) computes the December land anomaly based on 500hPaheights up to 20 Dec.
3. We assume that Dec SST anomaly is the same as Nov
4. We can therefore give a good estimate of 1996 global temps by 20Dec
5. We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (who has had this in thepast and seems now to expect
special treatment) so that he can writean article for the silly season. We could also give this to NevilleNicholls??
6. We explain that data is provisional and how the data has beencreated so early (ie the estimate for Dec) and also
7. We explain why the globe is 0.23k (or whatever the final figure is)cooler than 95 (NAO reversal, slight La Nina). Also that global annualavg is only accuirate to a few hundredths of a degree (we said thislast year – can we be more exact, eg PS/MS 0.05K or is this to big??)
8. FROM NOW ON WE ANSWER NO MORE ENQUIRIES ABOUT 1996 GLOBAL TEMPS
BUTEXPLAIN THAT IT WILL BE RELEASED IN JANUARY.
9. We relesae the final estimate on 20 Jan, with a joint UEA/MetOpress release. It may not evoke any interest by then.
10. For questions after the release to Nuttall, (I late Dec, earlyJan) we give the same answer as we gave him.
Are you happy with this, or can you suggest something better (iesimpler)? I know it sound a bit cloak-and-dagger but its just meant to save time in the long run.
Im copying this to DEP and CKF also for comments.
Cheers
Geoff
5 comments:
I am considering the option of collecting all the damnable squiggle-q mercury laden carbon credit worthy light bulbs and mailing them to these ass clowns with my sincerest sentiments inked on my steel toe carbon footprint to their hindquarters.
"Screw this" to Gore and everyone named on this single message.
The worst part of this is that the goals are worthy, it's just that freezing in the dark in Feb while biking to work in the snow is not in the cards as a solution to a made up emergency now masquerading as a way to get grants and make a living, while using peer review blockage to squash any threatening science
We don't have a SINGLE incandescent bulb left, and the reason is our electric bill PLUMMETED. That's a VALID reason..not economic suicide for the good of ...what?
Epa,
Move all artwork and family photos out of the range of fluorescent bulbs. They shower UV rays all over the place, and they will destroy everything given just a few years.
The incandescent bulb does not do that.
Fluorescent bulbs are poison.
Whoa.... what's the range .. we have a cathedral ceiling 20 feet high and 6 x 65w CFL floods pointing UP on dimmers recessed into beams, so it's all ambient ... are we talking direct radiation only?
Is there frame glass which will filter?
You said: pointing UP on dimmers recessed into beams, so it's all ambient
I say: You're the scientist, but here's what I understand. UV keeps going whatever direction it is pointed. It goes right through walls. If you have it pointed up, it will gradually (longer than your lifetime) etch out your ceiling. It will not bounce back down.
That's what I understand.
UV Rays are used industrially to etch metals.
Post a Comment