cc: C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, m.agnew@uea.ac.uk date: Sat, 2 May 2009 17:55:13 +0100 (BST) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: [Fwd: Re: CII sceptics (fwd)] to: "ANDREW DLUGOLECKI" Andrew, The CII should be shocked by the sceptical article. I was in Geneva last week and talked to experts in CO2 and sea-ice measurement. On the latter, the map Monckton shows is a comparison of winter days! I'd really emphasize the Arctic sea-ice decline in summer, as they can't expain this decline. In a footnote to the time series plot of sea ice amounts, there is mention of a underwater volcano. This is the Mid-Atlantic ridge ! This is spewing out heat from Iceland right down to Tristan da Cunha! This is a complete red herring! I'm attaching a couple of plots about CO2 increase and a recent paper. Monckton is assuming a linear increase in CO2 increase. This is wrong it is exponential. So we are above the IPCC SRES scenarios in terms of emissions. Cheers Phil ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Re: CII sceptics (fwd) From: "Philip Jones" Date: Fri, May 1, 2009 12:56 pm To: p.jones@uea.ac.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:38:32 +0000 (GMT) From: ANDREW DLUGOLECKI To: Phil Jones Cc: C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, m.agnew@uea.ac.uk Subject: Re: CII sceptics Phil (et al) I have done a thorough letter to the Chartered Insurance Institute. I think they are really shocked at the defects in the sceptical article they sponsored naively (see attached).   One aspect I did not cover was trends in CO2 as there were so many other obvious errors.  Can you say what the errors or misrepresenations are in the graph on page 4 of the attached pdf by Monckton please.   Finally, CII have decided they will make the full CII report 'Coping with Climate Change' publicly accessible on their website after I badgered them . I will tell you when it actually happens.   Thanks again Andrew Dlugolecki        --- On Tue, 21/4/09, Phil Jones wrote: From: Phil Jones Subject: Re: [Fwd: CII sceptics] To: C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, "ANDREW DLUGOLECKI" Cc: m.agnew@uea.ac.uk Date: Tuesday, 21 April, 2009, 3:41 PM  Andrew,     Presumably you have found all these links. If not sit down before  looking at them.  I've pasted a number of links below. In some of them  you will see very familiar diagrams.   http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html  This one seems very useful. It might be a way to respond. Your responses  so far seem to be in this type of format.  What I think has happened in CII is the Monckton has put together most of the  text from things he already had, and a paragraph has been added at the front and  one at the beginning to give the CII context.  In one of the ones below is his address  Monckton of Brenchley Carie, Rannoch, Scotland, PH17 2QJ 30 December 2008  Brenchley is in Kent, but he lives up your way!   http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/     http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/gore_testimony.pdfhttp://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/climate_sensitivity_reconsidered.pdf     http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/warming_not_happening.html   http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/warming_not_happening.pdf Cheers  Phil  Dear Andrew et al,       Clare has been away in Vienna, but she should be back later today.   We see things like this all the time - mainly on blog sites though. It is  difficult to know how to respond to them. When they appear in print, they  probably should be responded to, but we all have many things to do.  The points you make are all sound, and there are many more that we  could also make and add. Most will be technical, so not that relevant to  almost all readers of CII.     Here are a couple of relevant recently (or soon to be) published papers.  The ones M&M select are just the ones to make their arguments. They miss  hundreds on the other side.  Maybe a brief response pointing out their main mistakes?  Cheers  Phil ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: CII sceptics From:    "ANDREW DLUGOLECKI" Date:    Sun, April 19, 2009 4:39 pm To:      "maureen agnew"          "Clare Goodess" -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Maureen and Clare subsequent to launching the report, CII has published a ridiculous article which undermines their own position and discredits our report implicitly. I think it was as a result of pressure from an internal sceptic at a senior level, in order to show 'balance'.   I attach the scanned article ( which looks OK if you open it in Word Office), and also my proposed rebuttal. I would welcome your thoughts urgently. Cheers Andrew 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    p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK                                                                                 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------                                                                                Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Plots for Philip.ppt" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Hofmann 2009 Atm Env_final 20090311.pdf"