Swedes call out Jones on data availability

PRESS RELEASE

Stockholm March 5, 2010



Climate scientist delivers false statement in parliament enquiry

It has come to our attention, that last Monday (March 1), Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU), in a hearing with the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee made a statement in regards to the alleged non-availability for disclosure of Swedish climate data.

Dr. Jones asserted that the weather services of several countries, including Sweden, Canada and Poland, had refused to allow their data to be released, to explain his reluctance to comply with Freedom of Information requests.

This statement is false and misleading in regards to the Swedish data.

All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain. As is demonstrated in the attached correspondence between SMHI (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute), the UK Met Office and Dr. Jones (the last correspondence dated yesterday March 4), this has been clearly explained to Dr. Jones. What is also clear is that SMHI is reluctant to be connected to data that has undergone “processing” by the East Anglia research unit.

STOCKHOLM INITIATIVE
Göran Ahlgren, secretary general
Kungsgatan 82
12 27 Stockholm, Sweden

===================================

They included attached PDF files. which I have uploaded to WUWT below. Click for PDF files:

Request_from_Professor_Phil_Jones_regarding_the_release_of_data_from_the_HadCRUT_dataset__dnr_SMHI_

Data_from_the_HadCRUT_dataset_100304

DOC111209


Sponsored IT training links:
100% pass guarantee on first try with help of best quality 1Y0-A17 study material including 642-456 dumps and 1Y0-A08 practice exam.


About these ads

315 thoughts on “Swedes call out Jones on data availability

  1. Stockholm Syndrome
    “In cases where Stockholm syndrome has occurred, the captive is in a situation where the captor has stripped nearly all forms of independence and gained control of the victim’s life, as well as basic needs for survival. Some experts say that the hostage regresses to, perhaps, a state of infancy; the captive must cry for food, remain silent, and exist in an extreme state of dependence. In contrast, the perpetrator serves as a mother figure protecting her child from a threatening outside world,”

    Maybe it’s time for another definition. Standing up and calling out people who lie about climate issues.

  2. Interestingly it is all countries fairly far north they list, where the ‘warming’ has been the most extreme. Canada also has its data public on a website.

    And then the requests basically say, our temps don’t match your temps (but we’d like to release them as yours). I’d be very interested to compare the two sets, I bet my socks that the UEA’s version is warmer than the national ones.

  3. The SMH will not be attached to data that has undergone CRU “processing.”

    Fancy that.

  4. They are also of course free to release the SMHI data that is real, the other ‘various sources’ and then the method they used to create their own data. Why the reluctance for that? One can only guess.

  5. Unless I am missing something, it was Acton who claimed that Sweden did not allow publication. Jones was sitting next to Acton at the time and presumably knew that this was not correct, or was misleading.

    From: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/uc387-i/uc38702.htm

    “Professor Acton: Unfortunately, several of these countries impose conditions and say you are not allowed to pass it on, so there has just been an attempt to get these answers. Seven countries have said “No, you cannot”, half the countries have not yet answered, Canada and Poland are amongst those who have said, “No you cannot publish it” and also Sweden.”

  6. I’d like to see Jones original request – its specific wording would be of interest.

    But on the face of it – and absent other information – I’d have to say the original Swedish response “reads” like a refusal.

    Being quite a AGW skeptic, I must admit that this observation does not particularly please me. It gives cover where – I believe – none was intended, nor deserved.

  7. Not that I would want to gloat over this “Death of a thousand cuts” but it would be refresing to see the same kind of exposure applied here in the U.S. It’s a sad commentary that the American Free Press is avoiding this scandal like the plague.

  8. Boy he sure do keep digging doesn’t he. He is going to make Nixon look like a piker when it comes to coverups.

  9. I’ll bet this made Jones madder than a wet cat! So now it all makes sense. These various sources didn’t want their data released by JONES!

    That is a whole ‘nother “peanut butter n jelly samich”, than sayin, “These sources don’t want their data released”.

    My hat is off to the man. He sho’nuff can spin.

  10. Canada also has said that their data is available on their website. Seems that they had the same reluctance to have CRU put out massaged data. I could not, however, find where I could download historical data for the entire country. Sweden’s data is not helpful as the website linked is in Swedish, naturally.

  11. Does this means that some of the country agencies originating the data didn’t want the CRU data released because it had been massaged and would therefore be different from the data made available by these agencies directly?

    And they had little confidence in the efficacy of the massage?

    Wow!

  12. I thought that they where not allowed to publish the data on the CRU-website, and that the data where available at the source-website – like the swedish site?

  13. Amazing!! … In other words don’t release data you claim is from Sweden if you are going to put it through your Mann-made global warming algore-ithm … however our unadjusted data is available to anyone.

  14. It sounds like this is where Dr. Jones is coming from. He massaged the Swedish data making the data his as the Swedes no longer would have anything to do with the data. He never kept the original since it was freely available. The massaged data was therefore only available (or released) to those to whom he chose to give the data.

  15. haa haa now I understand why Dr. Phil Jones didn’t want to release Swedish data:
    “I tried for years to obtain the data that the IPCC was based on a claim that the climate in the Nordic region has become warmer, “says Karlén Wibjörn who is Professor Emeritus of Physical Geography at Uppsala. This did not with my own calculations show that the Nordic countries have not undergone any unusual warming, but both Philip Jones and Kevin Trenberth simply refuses to hand over the data.”

    http://www.svensktidskrift.se/?p=2213

  16. Jones has no idea whats going on ( he just says stuff) it pretty evident hes still very unorganized.

  17. “We stress that the data we hold has arisen from multiple sources, and has been recovered over the last 30 years. Subsequently quality control [?] and homogenisation of these data have been carried out. It is therefore highly likely that the version we hold and are requesting permission to distribute will differ from your own current holdings.”

    I.e. Even the “raw” data isn’t the real raw data.

    This just proves the whole thing is a con trick. Note they are not saying: “we wish to make available BOTH the raw data and adjusted data”, instead it is ONLY the upjusting data.

    Why do they even bother, it is a worthless PR stunt!

  18. This looks like –after some thrashing about– a reasonable solution. The Swedes don’t mind the data being released, they just want it to be clearly identified that at this point while it is “based” on their data, CRU has “done stuff” to it (so don’t blame us!).

    And requesting a link at CRU’s site to the real uncorrected Swedish data is both appropriate and helpful to those researchers who want to see the raw and what CRU did to it for the “value added” product.

    But since Jones’ statement was on Mar 1, and the letter giving permission was March 4, I am at a loss to understand why the Swedes seem to be calling him out here for making false statements. Perhaps an “english as second language” issue in nuance? Otherwise I’m puzzled. They told him ‘no’ on Dec 21, 2009; he told the world they said ‘no’ on Mar 1, 2010; they tell him it’s okay after all with reasonable provisos on Mar 4, 2010. . . and then they say he’s fibbing on Mar 5 about what he said on Mar 1?

    What’s wrong with this picture?

  19. I feel a bit of sympathy for Professor Jones in this regard. If I had received a letter stating

    Given the information that the version of the data from the SMHI stations that you hold are likely to differ from the data we hold, SMHI do not want the data to be released on your web site.

    I would have assumed that to be a clear refusal to permit him to release the data. The subsequent letter was of course after the hearing and the latest statement that the statement is false and misleading in regards to the Swedish data is to say the least somewhat harsh in relation to what Professor Jones knew at the time.

  20. @Geo – they didn’t tell him “no” on December 21: they said they didn’t want their data on his website, but gave him a url when it could be downloaded.

  21. This is interesting.
    A lot of scientific data is like that: It’s available for download provided it’s for a non-commercial use. You would have to get their consent otherwise.
    There’s a lot of twists and turns to this story.
    Dr. Jones may get find himself in hot water, but the question is: Whos hot water?
    And if the version of Swedish data he was using is not the same as the Swedes’ version, then his statement of ‘most’ is being evasive….at best.
    That’s a good way to tick off your questioners.

  22. I don’t think that amounts to telling porkies to the committee, if they took the first letter at face value. However, it’s surprising they didn’t question the letter earlier, that just shows sloppiness. Clearly the Swedes think the committee was given the wrong impression, hence the second letter,

  23. I suspect Canada will come around to the Swedish position once they figure out we’re really talking about two different datasets here. What’s on Canada’s website is no doubt the “raw”. . . but that is no assistance at all in verifying CRUTEM algorithms that take place after the “value added” dataset has been created.

    The Canadian raw is, of course, very valuable for seeing what the raw is vs the value added to see if it looks like the “value add” dataset is appropriate, logical etc. But *both* datasets (Canadian raw & CRU value added) need to be available to get a real end-to-end view of CRUTEM and its appropriateness.

    The Swedes figured that out –hopefully the Canadians and Poles will as well.

  24. Sweden’s data is not helpful as the website linked is in Swedish, naturally.

    This is the internet in 2010!

    Just wait a bit….. :)

  25. Pamela Gray (12:59:48) :
    I’ll bet this made Jones madder than a wet cat! So now it all makes sense. These various sources didn’t want their data released by JONES!

    That is a whole ‘nother “peanut butter n jelly samich”, than sayin, “These sources don’t want their data released”.
    ?
    Maybe they didn’t have a problem with THEIR DATA, but what Phil was going to release was his REVISED NORMALIZED version of THEIR DATA.

    I wonder how many more country agencies felt the same way

  26. The BBC parliament channel is tonight covering the proceeding of the UK Government parliamentary committee at which Phil Jones gave evidence ( three hours of witness evidence). It is very apparent that the committee is biased towards global warming ( as expected). It gave Lord Lawson quite a rough time and seemed to be looking for ways to cover up the Climategate embarrassment rather than investigate the real issues. very disappointing :-(

  27. @Leon Brozyna (13:13:26) :

    What are you seeing that I’m not? How can he have lied about having permission on Mar 1 when he didn’t get permission until Mar 4?

    This looks like pure confusion over how many datasets there are and what happens to them as they go in and out of various products.

    I have some very sincere sympathy on that point –it *is* confusing as hell and in fact I’ve mentioned several times we need a darn map of the datasets and processing points!

  28. Either Doctor Jones is lying through his fanatic teeth, or his utterly stupid and didn’t think it was necessary to fact check his facts.

    At the rate his going at, he’ll prolly never come out on top.

    I wonder can anyone actually dig his grave quicker and deeper then Doctor Jones. Maybe it’s the whip that makes a Jones.

  29. When you find yourself in a hole its a good idea to stop digging!
    The tissue of lies and half truths is spinning out of control as each excuse raises new unintended consequences.

  30. Interesting, I don’t think I read that letter in quite the same way as some others have. It might be me misreading it, though.

    The way I read it is that the SMHI have now updated / quality checked / reprocessed their data, and that therefore the raw data from SMHI today is different to the raw data decades ago when it was provided to Jones. Therefore, to prevent confusion, they would prefer just the latest data to be available from a single source (the SMHI) rather than multiple versions (which could cause confusion).

    This is reasonable enough from a config control perspective, but raises some other questions. For example, Jones claimed some of the raw data was lost. This was very heavily criticised (since it implied there was no way to replicate the analysis at all), but Jones insisted that it was okay because the NMSs had copies of the data.

    What seems apparent is that the NMSs may well NOT hold the data as provided to the CRU many years ago under configuration control; so it is possible that all we now have really is the “value added” data with questionable historical processing – and no way of checking what happened to it in the meat grinder.

    It also goes some way to show the problems with out-of-date data used by the CRU and Jones’ obfuscation by refusing to provide WMO station IDs. Utterly disgraceful behaviour, and the number of “scientists” defending this is shocking.

    (Also note the Stockholm Initiative is not the same as SMHI… there is a big difference between the “value added” commentary of the SI compared to the “raw” response from the SMHI. I’m sure this will be obvious to most though)

  31. “It has come to our attention, that last Monday (March 1), Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU), in a hearing with the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee made a statement in regards to the alleged non-availability for disclosure of Swedish climate data…This statement is false and misleading in regards to the Swedish data.”

    Well, I suppose we are finally going to find out if the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee is really trying to find out the truth or is just preparing a whitewash. Lying to Parliament is a very serious *crime* in the UK; if they do not go after him for this, they are engaged in a whitewash.

  32. Phil Jones has been riding in his time machine again. Here he is, using a refusal dated November 2009 to justify his actions in 2007 and 2008.

  33. Oh what a tangled web we weave,
    When we practise to deceive.

    House of Commons don’t like
    a) being patronised or
    b) porkies

  34. Re: my 13:31:57, meh, just saw the attachment of Jones’ letter explaining the differences in the versions, and it is because of the CRU tampering after all. Note to self: read the paperwork more carefully before commenting…

  35. Stockholm Initiative are a bunch of skeptics. They are hardly unbiased observers, yet this piece makes it appear that they are an official body. Those of you who read the pdf, will realise that they largely support Prof. Jones story.

    SMHI are probably not keen on there being two versions of their data in circulation. Regardless of the quality of each version, this guarantee confusion.

  36. @Spence_UK (13:31:57) :

    Not quite. Jones *doesn’t have the raw data*. He lost it, remember? Remember all the stories about data archiving standards and abilities in the 1980s so they purged the raw data and only kept their “value added” dataset?

    That’s why we’re really talking about *two different datasets” here. This is clearly what the Swedes finally figured out and thus gave permission on Mar 4, with reasonable and appropriate provisos to make it clear that what Jones is going to release on his website *is a different dataset than what the Swedes have on their website*.

    The above paragraph isn’t news to those who have been following the story closely, but clearly the Swedes hadn’t been so their original refusal no doubt seemed very appropriate to them. . . until they had the “ah ha” moment about the real state of play and came up with a quite reasonable solution to get that data (Jones ‘value add’ version, that is) out in public without them (the Swedes, that is) being thought the culprit for any nasties that are later found in it.

  37. 2 points:

    1. The letter from SMHI is dated 21 Dec 2009 which is well after the FOI requests asking for the raw data used by CRU, Does this mean Jones had never asked for permission to release this data until the emails were released and he needed to find some way to back up his non-disclosure’ statements?

    2. SMHI’s 21Dec 2009 letter refuses permission for Jones to place their data (or adjusted data claimed to be SMHI’s raw data) ON THE UEA WEBSITE. There is nothing in the letter stating that Jones cannot pass on the SMHI data to other researchers, FOI requesters, etc.

  38. Göran Ahlgren is an active climate anti-alarmist, so that last statement above is just spinning the SMHI letters into overdrive. That Dec 21 letter reads like a refusal just like they said during the Mar 1 hearing. That second letter is dated Mar 4. In this case I think Jones is on solid ground.

    Now that it is clear the the “adjusted” data can be released after all, it’d be mighty interesting to compare against the SMHI raw-raw data.

  39. Doesn’t this turn of events also prove that no one can check/review his work with the data you get from the original source?

  40. I believe this goes back to the emails. Jones and others were coming up with ways they can hide from FIA requests. That other countries/sources “refused” to allow them to release data was one of the ways they used, and said so in their emails to each other. But now it appears this was not a refusal, it was a qualified yes. That is a big OOPS.

  41. What some people are overlooking is that Dr. Jones and the Met office were asking the SMHI for permission to release the CRU’s homogenized version of the data as being the SMHI version of the data ie he was going to try and pawn off value added data as the raw from Sweden.

    Now just think of the postion that would have put the Swedes in if they had said yes to that, then when they got their website up and running people went and downloaded the real raw data from them. They would then get nailed for trying to pull Phil’s chestnuts out of the fire by agreeing to let Phil mis-characterize the CRU value added data as raw from them. Can you say accessory to a cover up?

    I have been thru the links provided in the Swede’s Dec document and the actual data is in English and they do things a mite different. They provide 6 Temp readings: 0600, 1200 and 1800 UTC as well as Min/Max, they calculate their Mean by using all 5 readings. You can read that here:

    Daily mean temperature has been calculated with Ekholm-Modens formula, in which the temperatures at 06 UTC, 12 UTC and 18 UTC as well as daily minimum and maximum temperature are used.

    http://data.smhi.se/met/climate/time_series/day/temperature/file_content_temperature.pdf

    Here is the link straight to the data files:

    http://data.smhi.se/met/climate/time_series/day/temperature/

    Word of warning the files are txt files and they are the daily readings for each day per month per year.

  42. geo (13:25:01) :

    When you have someone who plays with the words as an answer it makes for bad press all the way around. He used them in his wiggly defense.
    The Swedes have a relationship to maintain with member nations of the EU, and backing up antics like that will generate a lot of animosity.
    Hence, the 2nd letter, after they saw his performance and his intent was made clear.
    Dropped him like a hot potato.

  43. geo (13:08:47) :
    What’s wrong with this picture? Good question.

    Given the information that the version of the data from the SMHI stations that you hold are likely to differ from the data we hold, SMHI do not want the data to be released on your web site.

    Ah oh, problem with the raw Swiss data too?

  44. @Turning Tide (13:16:59) :

    Except the data on the Swedish site isn’t what all the FOIA were about. Jones doesn’t have that data, and it isn’t what he requested to release on his own website.

    Really, it is a tangled mess and I get that. And so, to, eventually did the Swedes.

    There is the raw data that the Swedes and others have. Let’s call that “Swede I” (“Canada I”, “Poland I”, etc)

    Then calculations and stuff were done to the oldest parts of it (say pre-1990 observations) and stored as the “value add” version that Jones keeps. We’ll call that “Swede II” (etc). Jones, having temporarily had custody of “Swede I”, then threw it in the trashcan sometime in the 1980s. There are stories about this out there on the internet.

    Then further calculations are done to all the “II” versions to arrive at CRUTEM.

    Jones wrote the Swedes and asked to release “Swede II”. The Swedes wrote back and said “Not necessary, Swede I is already on our website”. Somewhere in between there and Mar 4 they realized that the issue Jones was pointing at wasn’t “Swede I” availability, it was “Swede II” availability. So they came up with a good solution to allow Swede II to be available while disclaiming responsibility for it and providing an easy route to get Swede I too from their website.

    For a guy like Steve McIntyre to check Jones work, he needs *both* Swede I and Swede II, and the algorithms that are applied to all the “II” versions to arrive at CRUTEM.

    There, I think that’s the best I can do to explain my understanding of what happened here. If the internet train is gonna run me over anyway after that on its way to more Jones bashing (which he has often richly deserved, just not this time so far as I can see), I would appreciate it if someone would explain where I’m wrong while I’m getting flattened. :)

  45. Bit of a red herring. Stockholm Initiative have sexed this one up. Calm down everyone. You’re sounding like warmist alarmists, grabbing at anything. From the attachments this really isn’t a big deal.

  46. It’s also worthwhile to note the the group of Swedes bashing Jones on Mar 5 aren’t the same group of Swedes who gave him permission on Mar 4 to release “Swede II”.

    “Stockholm Initiative” is just confused (easy enough!) about the difference between Swede I and Swede II, and why it matters re the foia requests.

  47. Perhaps they could have avoided confusion if Jones weren’t a little embarrassed by his inability to identify the original “raw” data in his “value-added” version.

    In essence, he asked the Swedes if he could release his own data set, not theirs.

    He apparently felt he ought to ask permission to release his own data set, because he couldn’t distinguish between the parts which were his own and the parts which remained the same as the original Swedish data.

    The reply from the Swedes shows they recognized that whatever Jones released would differ in some parts from their own original data.

    Rather than do as they eventually did in March, the Swedes at first said they would rather Jones not release the hybridized data set that he had developed.

    Subsequently, after Jones claimed that public release of Swedish data had been refused, the Swedes tried to clarify–their data is publicly available, but Jones’s data set is not theirs since he has changed it.

    Since Swedish data is available, and since Jones holds his own adjusted version of that available data, I wonder why Jones didn’t simply ask the Swedes for their original data so he could see what his adjustments had done to it.

    The question all along has been whether the original data could be validly used to produce Jones’s end product. So, why didn’t Jones simply ask the Swedes for the original data which he had long ago thrown away?

  48. The Stockholm Initiative’s Webpages are completely blank right now, but versions with text are still in Google cache and Yahoo! cache. Internet Archive found no matches.

  49. For those of you who haven’t followed the CRU FOIA story closely, here’s the key webpage, which was the response by CRU back in August 2009 to requests for raw station data the forms the basis for the HADCRUT3 global temperature anomaly time series.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/

    The key sentence is “Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data. ”

    In other words, the CRU say that they no longer hold the raw, orginal data. The CRU only has data that has been adjusted, homogenized, and most likely, pasteurized and warmed.

  50. @JeffC
    I understand that and reading Jones request letter I can understand the Swedish reluctance to have their name associated with it.
    I was suggesting that if I received a letter as received by Dr Jones I would also have taken that to be a refusal to release the data.
    Notwithstanding that I really wished they would have let him as it would have given a wonderful opportunity to compare the raw data (assuming the Swedish version isn’t also “adjusted”) with the CRU adjusted version.

  51. Some where I recall seeing a statement or press release by the CRU or U of East Anglia, back in August 2009, that said they were sending out requests to the original providers of data.

    It appears from the files provided by the Swedes, that this request only went out around November 30th.

    So it looks like it took the unauthorized release of the climategate e-mails to spur UEA into doing what they said they were doing last August.

    Do I have the dates right?
    Is this another mini-scandal ?

  52. We need Jim Henson to come back from the dead to do a skit with the Swedish Chef cooking the global warming data. Bork, bork, bork.

  53. Is he testifying under oath ? Is it possible that this guy has been absolute ruler of his little puddle, for so long that he simply doesn’t appreciate just how much trouble he’s in.

  54. Maybe some countries have copyright on their data and CRU has been violating the copyright. I know one originating country that requires permission for any data sent out by the second party to be altered. It also requires permission before the data are passed on to a third party. To my knowledge, there is no specific agreement between this country & CRU allowing either of these events to happen, but then I might not have all of the relevant facts.

  55. The way I read this is that Jones asked for permission to publish the adjusted data as that of Swedin’s. They said, no that is not our record so you can’t show them as our records.

    Jones comes back and says can’t show any of their temps.

    Those are not the same thing.

    If I ask for a photo of you and photoshop you into something that makes you look stupid and then I ask you if I can publish that adjusted photo as if were the real photo (look at the websites referenced, it only says quality controled, which is a very broad term) it is not a real surprise if you said no.

    For example, you can “quality control” a photograph by simply removing red-eye or go all out and remove blemishes, add/remove hair and remove/alter other problems which could leave the photo looking nothing like the original.

    What they should do if they want to be completely honest would be to ask for permission to post the data as they received it (what was fed into the computer) and also ask for permission to post the results of their processing with big disclaimers saying that this data is CRU data which is the result of processing the raw data in various ways using this code* as described by this peer reviewed paper*.

    * are links to the actual code to run the data and a link to the paper or the name of the paper and the journal it was in (with a link to someplace you could obtain the paper)

  56. Btw, it would CLEARLY be much preferable to store only the raw data and then have a separate store of “business rules” that fire off in processing each time to do whatever needs to be appropriately done to it. And, of course, archive the versions of the business rules as they change and make all those versions of the business rules publicly available along with the raw data.

    But guess what? That would be a new version of the product, and not what all the foia were about.

    Hopefully CRU or Met will move to that kind of processing model.

    Where Steve McI is going to have a problem –and likely have to go ’round and ’round with CRU again– is in determining what was done, and why, to get from Swede I to Swede II (and all the other raw datasets).

    I can hear him already sighing about that.

    If we’re really lucky, then CRU is doing something more like I mentioned about applying business rules to the newest raw data, and then Steve could use the older period raw data (from the Swedes site), apply the business rules (that CRU would have to provide), and arrive at something (hopefully!) like the “II” versions that CRU has been holding onto for the old pre-1990 data.

    But if we’ve learned anything about CRUs custody of this stuff, it is that it has been a scandalous mess. I feel near to certain that even if they have/use business rules today for applying to the newest raw data, that if you apply it to the “I” datsets for that old pre-1990 data there will be significant differences in the results you get compared to the “II” datasets pre-1990 data that Jones has been storing.

  57. geo (13:25:01) :
    @Leon Brozyna (13:13:26) :
    What are you seeing that I’m not? How can he have lied about having permission on Mar 1 when he didn’t get permission until Mar 4?
    This looks like pure confusion over how many datasets there are and what happens to them as they go in and out of various products.
    I have some very sincere sympathy on that point –it *is* confusing as hell and in fact I’ve mentioned several times we need a darn map of the datasets and processing points!

    No, you’re forgetting:

    David (13:34:21) :
    Phil Jones has been riding in his time machine again. Here he is, using a refusal dated November 2009 to justify his actions in 2007 and 2008.

    In his emails covered on WUWT previously, Jones stated he could not give out the data. This was in 2007. To cover his …, he wrote this letter, specifically stating the data would be homogenized, probably knowing he would be refused permission.

    BTW, the Swedish data is not as important as Siberian or African, which are sparser, show the most warming, immensely harder to obtain, and probably the original data that was lost.

    geo (13:39:50) :

  58. Obviously what Jones meant was “The Swiss won’t let us release our overly massaged data AND put their name on it.”

  59. A couple of points:

    SMHI are very pro-AGW, though perhaps not quite to the degree of the Met Office

    They are also rather restrictive about their data. They are an “affärsdrivande verk”, i e a sort of a cross between a government agency and a profit-making business. There is a licence agreement on their site that you are supposed to accept before downloading the data. However given Swedish FOIA rules and Intellectual Property Laws, that licence would almost certainly not hold up in a court.

    The SMHI “raw data” are not raw, they have already been homogenized.

  60. what a mess! aren’t these the trust us guys that want the economies of the developed world restructured to save us from… all that bad stuff.

    it’s the keystone cops, alice through the looking glass, down the rabbit hole… and it gets worse by the day.

    seriously, would you trust these guys to design a bridge, an autopilot, a throttle position sensor, a pressure vessel…

    whats left to discuss…

  61. Re: Leif Svalgaard (14:27:19)

    If you think Corbyn is wrong, please explain where you think he is wrong.

  62. CRU admitted months ago they didn’t actually know what agreements they had made re confidentiality, just that there were some, and more than they had documentation for. So they were going back around to everyone to get permissions again.

    To respond to the foia in a meaningful way, providing just some (even a large amount, but still a subset) of the data would not allow a Steve McIntyre to verify CRUTEM does what Jones says it does.

    The value-added “Swede II” dataset is a derivative product of “Swede I” (the Swedish raw). The Swedes own “Swede I”. Both Jones and the Swedes have rights in “Swede II”, so the Swedes need to consent.

  63. I believe Professor Acton to be as culpable as Prof Jones, as it was Acton who included the Swedish as one of the countries who would not allow CRU to release data that originated from those countries. My suspicions were aroused that Acton might just be something of a puppet-master when he turned to Jones during the Parliamentary enquiry and complimented Jones on an answer that was “absolutely spot-on!”. My experience of university Vice-Chancellors is that they generally regard themselves as having God sitting on their right hand and are utterly above the roilings of mere mortals.
    I still worry the the Brit politicos are filling the whitewash buckets and selecting their brushes.

  64. Not only that, but this evening (Friday 5th, as I write) our “hero” Al Gore guested the Skavlan talk show, which is a co-production between Swedish and Norwegian TV.
    Unfortunately, the talk show host Fredrik Skavlan seemed too taken by the moment to ask any real tough questions. Gore came with some absurd statements, though, like that the “coal lobby” was spending half a billion dollars on “anti-climate” TV advertising or that there are “five anti-climate” lobbyists in Washington for every congressman.
    URL:s for the program aren’t up yet, but I’m sure you’ll be able to find them under either http://www.svt.se or http://www.no.nrk (search for “Skavlan”; Al Gore will be in the last third of the program)

    –Ahrvid

  65. See

    http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/24/cru-refuses-data-once-again/

    for CRU passing data to a third party, namely Peter Webster of Georgia Tech.

    Contrast this with the extract from the pdf in the header here from Dr. M. Hulme of CRU “The data will not be used unauthorised for any other project and will not be passed onto any third party.”

    Yes, I know the dates are different and the promises are made to different people and might involve different countries, but the point is that each passing day reveals more confusion; and that leads to a loss of confidence in ability.

    The primary conclusion is that CRU are fighting a battle to prevent raw data being tabulated alongside some versions of the CRU “value added” data.

    They will lose.

  66. Leif Svalgaard (14:23:43) :

    “The Stockholm Initiative is an Advocacy group started by these folks: http://www.issa.int/

    Themselves says as follows;

    “The Stockholm Initiative is a politically and economically independent non-profit organization dedicated to promoting rational climate-, energy-, and environmental policies. The Stockholm Initiative combines a broad scientific competence, commitment with society and environment with political, cultural and industrial experience.”

    I have given them a tip about this blog, so we will see if there is a response.

  67. @ Robert of Ottawa (13:21:49) :
    “As is Canadian data. Jones lies.”

    I think, in British terms, he would be being economical with the truth, a wonderful phrase:
    ” It was brought into the contemporary language by the UK Cabinet Secretary, Sir Robert Armstrong, who used the phrase during the Australian ‘Spycatcher’ trial in 1986.
    Lawyer: What is the difference between a misleading impression and a lie?
    Armstrong: A lie is a straight untruth.
    Lawyer: What is a misleading impression – a sort of bent untruth?
    Armstrong: As one person said, it is perhaps being “economical with the truth”.

    What Armstrong left out (perhaps he knew but was being economical) was that the ‘one person’ was Edmund Burke. In 1796 Burke wrote:

    “Falsehood and delusion are allowed in no case whatsoever: But, as in the exercise of all the virtues, there is an economy of truth.”

  68. What is also clear is that SMHI is reluctant to be connected to data that has undergone “processing” by the East Anglia research unit

    Ouch!

    Why not just kick him while he’s down?

    SaveE.

  69. The thing I actually get mad at Jones the most about, is he is the only one who truly understood over the last 20 years what a hash up this was. . . .and he did nothing about it. Sometime in the mid-to-late ’90s when it was becoming apparent how important this stuff is, he should have started rectifying these issues on his own and maybe by 2007 he would have had a product he wasn’t ashamed for the world to see the innards of. Whatever excuses he might make to himself about “1980s standards”, the reality he is he had a long time *after that* to get his house in order, and did nothing.

  70. It is unfortunate that the heads of CRU, NOAA and GISS are ‘firm’ believers in AGW.

    My test of fairness and acceptability is to [mentally] reverse the situation and see if people would still regard it as fair.

    In this instance it would be to replace all these people with skeptics. It is only processing data, so there should be no bias.

    Imagine the outcry there would be about how these new people would manipulate and distort the data to their own ends etc. etc., I would be able to hear the screams from here! Yet we are asked to accept that the current situation is not a problem.

  71. Wasn’t it Prof Acton who made the statement regarding the Swedish data?

    Given that the claification from SMHI was dated 4th March 2010 (ie after the 1st March sub-committee), Prof Acton’s account would seem to have been correct as per the 21st December 2009 letter from SMHI.

    Prof Jones’s letter forwarded to SMHI 30th November 2009 referred to publication of the CRU data set. Whilst the rationale was clarified on 4th March, the 21st December response from SMHI seemed clear: “SMHI do not want the data to be released on your web site.”

  72. Paul Vaughan (14:50:37) :
    If you think Corbyn is wrong, please explain where you think he is wrong.
    You are wrong in asserting that any one of your two curves ‘explains’ the other. About Corbyn, I can’t comment on something he won’t publish.

  73. Dr. Jones, the gig is up, your data stinks, it’s all corrupt,
    Just resign, relax, let go and let your betters run the show.
    And by your “betters”, what I mean is, scientists who won’t demean us,
    Folks who gladly show their data, and ask, “Could I do better?”
    “Cause if I can, that’s great! Alright! Truth will shine with skeptic’s light!”
    Here’s a concept. Listen close. And don’t “homogenize” my post.
    Don’t mis-direct. Don’t obfuscate. If you do, you’ll seal your fate.
    Tell the world about your science, about it’s arrogance and bias,
    About how little that is known of murky complex bio-zones,
    Of ocean inputs feebly guessed at, of water vapor’s unknown feedback.
    95% sure? Say what? Oh my! Does it pain you when you lie?
    You’ve admitted, this is rich, our current warming’s NOT a glitch,
    If it was, there wouldn’t be the SAME increases, historically,
    Which proves that, yes, we’ve warmed and cooled, so what? Big deal. I won’t be fooled.
    But still those Grants keep rolling in, rewarding only those who spin,
    Proclaiming loudly, “We can do it! Save the world! Shut down that commerce!”
    “Coal is murder! Hansen’s right! Let’s tax the rich ’til the pigs take flight!”
    But luckily, despite the yelling, the truth is leaking out, and smelling.
    The stench will grow. Corruption taints. I’ve said enough. I rest my case.

    .

    .
    ©Dave Stephens 2010

  74. Steamboat McGoo (12:56:41) :

    “I’d like to see Jones original request – its specific wording would be of interest.”

    The last page of the third link at the end of the article is teh request from Jones.

    He is not asking for the original data, but permission to post his massaged monthly averaged data. It is a cleaver way of asking for Sweden’s stamp of approval for his “value added” product.

    I can see the reluctance of Sweden, Canada, Poland and perhaps others to be signing their name to CRU’s methods.

  75. tty (14:48:21) :

    The SMHI “raw data” are not raw, they have already been homogenized.
    +++++

    That’s interesting. But what do they give Jones? Both originally for the old period, and on an ongoing basis? There may actually be three datasets here. . .

  76. Jones should have released all data and code, with the caveat that raw data from certain sources/countries, may need to be obtained independently, due to………agreements.

    Now he is starting to look evasive.

  77. From the Jones letter:

    “We stress that the data we hold has arisen from multiple sources, and has been recovered over the last 30 years. Subsequent quality control and homogenisation of these data have been carried out. It is therefore highly likely that the version we hold and are requesting permission to distribute will differ from your current holdings.”

    This is a difficult sentence to parse and likely caused a lot of confusion with the Swedes. The only way I can make sense of it is that Jones is saying is that they (the CRU) have modified the data and, as such, the modified data represents a derivative work of the raw data. Jones is asking for permission to release the derivative work and, presumably, to pass it off as the original data. Presumably, they would use a ‘trick’ of language to hide the fact that it is not the original data.

    Of course, this is not what people need. They need to original station data. If Jones is allowed to release the derivative work and claim, through obfuscation that its the raw data (they would say something like ‘this is the data that the Swedes gave us permission to release’ without noting that the data had been post processed), then we would be in for *another* couple of years of fighting to make people understand what’s being withheld.

    But fortunately the Swedes saw the trick and shut the CRU down:
    “It has never been our intention to withhold any data but we feel that it is paramount that data that has undergone, for instance, homogenisation by anyone other than SMHI is not presented as SMHI data”.

  78. Do I have this right?

    The Swedes take data which they massage adjust, they then feed this data to Phil & Co. who further massage adjust the data to end up with a dataset?

    Is that close?

    Is there a problem here?

    DaveE

  79. So, the cliff-notes rundown now…

    0) CRU makes gridded temperature anomaly charts of the globe.
    1) Original data is “lost”, Value-added data retained.
    2) Bloggers request original data and methods from Jones.
    3) CRU Stonewalls and drags their feet.
    4) When finally called out, CRU says, “we can’t due to agreements with other people.”
    5) Climategate e-mails are leaked.
    6) It is at this point that CRU finally asks for permission to release from other orgs who supposedly wont allow it.
    7) Other orgs say, “If you only have your manipulated data, then don’t release a thing.”
    8) CRU claims before MPs they cannot release their data at all.
    9) Scientists fail to call out their peers for malfeasance.

  80. Jones should divulge the homogenization algorithms and any other procedures he’s applied to the temperature datasets he publishes, all referenced against the raw data. Otherwise, his datasets are null and void, completely meaningless, worthless, baseless… let’s see, what other adjectives can I add here to get the message across that Jones isn’t a scientist; he’s a “climate scientist”?

  81. Well it seems to me, that if I am given somebody else’s data (by them; or at least with their knowledge that I have been given it); there would be basically two things I can do with it.

    The first thing, would be to use that raw data as is, wihout modifications of any kind, and use it to do whatever studies/analyses/derivations etc might have been my purpose in requesting the data.
    In the event I wanted to publish my results, I would certainly want to obtain permission from the originators of the data, to publish my results, and with proper attribution of the data set used in my studies.

    The other thing I might do, would be to “process the raw data” to obtain some homogenized derivative data set; for whatever purpose; which might also include further analyses based on the homogenized data. In which case it would seem to me to be appropriate to make it clear in my writings, that I have masticated the original data, and that my results should reflect that and not be ascribed to the authors of the original; other than to acknowledge their sourcing of the raw set.

    I would consider it common courtesy to keep the source of the data, apprised of my machinations; so they could have the opportunity to opt out of being mentioned in my publishings, or even to request that they not do so with their data.

    I’m sure that scientists routinely pass around other people’s data or results with proper attribution of course; we can’t all go out and replicate all the data sets in existence to explore further avenues of study.

    But it clearly isn’t cricket to modify someone elses data, and then publish conclusions based on such modified data; but leaving the impression that the results were obtained from the author’s raw data.

    With so much emphasis on statistical mastication of raw data, in climate publications; it would seem that a prime reason for aquiring someone’s data is to make derivatives from it; for some hopefully legitimate purpose.

    But it needs to be made clear where the lines of origin are drawn.

  82. @Alexander (14:53:44)

    “I still worry the the Brit politicos are filling the whitewash buckets and selecting their brushes.”

    It’s going to take a long time to slow this AGW train down. They might try and whitewash CRU/UEA to save face but there is a lot of evidence on the record which demands answers now and they’ll be pretty conscious of the winter we’ve just had. Read any of the comments pages on the UK news coverage and it’s clear what the electorate think. IMO it’ll be a brave and foolish politico who tries to push AGW along right now. All the back up rhetoric will remain available if required but nobody will want to commit to spend spend spend whilst it is clear the fundamental “science is not settled”, especially with the current hole in public finances.

    re: Acton – oh, for Spitting Image to do a comeback “Climate Special”!…

  83. You know what this means.

    This means that all the raw data is not truly raw at all. This would apply to both Hadcrut and probably the NCDC’s GHCN database as well since we know they all doing the same kind of massaging.

    Someone will need to show that the Swedish raw database is virtually the same as Jones’ Hadcrut massaged raw data (just slightly different is probably okay) or we have to conclude all the raw data is useless in terms of being a base starting point.

  84. Doug in Seattle (15:22:30) :

    Thanks a bunch! I did not see that. That clears it up.

    *Heaves sigh of relief*

    I was worried that I would have to slightly alter my “world view” in light of these new factual documents. It now appears that – as you say – it was just Jones being clever…or so he thought.

  85. Australia is happy to have it’s data adjusted – they did it in 1999 – It was done By Dr Simon Torok who at the time was working at the Tyndale Centre at UAE.

    Here’s the adjustments he made to Sydney.

    http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Adjusted_Sydney

    Here’s the adjustments he made and why.

    http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Adjustments

    and this is why the mean temperature chart fro Australia is this.

    I must add that I do not believe it was a malicious action on behalf of Dr Torok or the BoM. It was in fact the science of the day and because no one cared about global warming it went unnoticed.

  86. Lying to a parliamentary commitee is contempt of parliament.

    ‘Any action taken by either a Member of Parliament or a stranger which obstructs or impedes either Parliament in the performance of its functions, or its Members or staff in the performance of their duties, is a contempt of Parliament. Examples of contempt include giving false evidence to a parliamentary committee, threatening a Member of Parliament, forgery of documents and attempting to bribe members. The Commons has the power to order anyone who has committed a contempt of Parliament to appear at the Bar of the House and to punish the offender. If the offence has been committed by an MP he or she may be suspended or expelled.’
    From here (amongst others) http://www.theyworkforyou.com/glossary/?gl=95

    I have written to my M.P. I recommend that any (all) other British readers here do the same with either links to, or including, the SMHI letters.

  87. Well, here’s my take… if a data set has been ‘homogenized’ then as far as I understand, copyright of the homogenized data transfers to the person/organization that performed the adjustments to the data.

    Even if the SMHI had advised the CRU that their data could not be released, there was nothing stopping the CRU releasing their homogenized data; because it was now a different data set.

    And to ensure transparency, the CRU could have included a supporting statement saying something like “this data set was originally provided by the SMHI and has been homogenized by the CRU. You can request the raw data from the SMHI”.

    In fact, in this case the there was nothing apparently stopping the CRU from releasing both the original data set and the homogenized data set; which, reading between the lines of the SMHI’s letter, is something they would have supported.

    But as we all know, the word “transparent” doesn’t exist in the CRUs lexicon. Jones continues to lie and wriggle.

    The sooner he gets thrown under a bus the better.

  88. Geo: “I am at a loss to understand why the Swedes seem to be calling him out here for making false statements…(1) They told him ‘no’ on Dec 21, 2009; he told the world they said ‘no’ on Mar 1, 2010; they tell him it’s okay after all with reasonable provisos on Mar 4, 2010… (2) and then they say he’s fibbing on Mar 5 about what he said on Mar 1?
    What’s wrong with this picture?”

    Different Swedes are saying different things. The passages prefaced (1) above refer to one group – Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute – the passage prefixed (2) refers to another group – Stockholm Initiative – who are making an unrelated set of claims.

    The request by the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute is simple enough: do not release Swedish data on the CRU website for fear of confusion. Is this good practice? Yes it is. Why? Because when people see information on a website they assume that it is “owned” by that website.

    Evidence? The confusion evidenced by a number of people here who have assumed that the pdf links in the above story are sourced from the same organisation that produced the press release, exacerbated by the use of the common term “Swedes” in the headline. But not all Swedes think alike.

  89. I don’t know what the official standing in Canada is, but I know that you can go online to the Environment Canada site at this address http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climateData/canada_e.html and pick what ever weather station you want and get the data by hourly. daily, monthly for almost any year you want or you can chose almanac that in my area goes back to 1840. So if nay one can do that on line by them selves from an official government site, I find it highly unlikely that Canada refuses to release its data.

  90. Leif Svalgaard (14:23:43) :
    “The Stockholm Initiative is an Advocacy group started by these folks:
    http://www.issa.int/ and does not represent the Swedish Meteorological Institute.”

    Does it alter the fact that contrary to Phil Jones testimony to the hearing in the commons that Swedish climate data is public domain?

  91. Glad the Swedes drew a line in the sand – ‘don’t you dare call that data from Sweden’.

    Kinda OT, go ahead and snip, is ok – But in the REAL world – the datapoints have to tie to the gridded product. One does not get to ‘adjust’ the data to suit one’s ‘tidy story’.

    Further – you show the data points and annotate the values. So that one can evaluate the product.

    Come on for cryin out loud! I’d get fired for doing what they did.

  92. Has anyone checked out the source of this? I got a very similar email to my “untrusted” email address, saying it was from stockholminitiative.com, but that website doesn’t seem to exist, and it seems to belong to a two-bit hosting company.

  93. The summary is:

    Jones asked the Swedes if CRU ‘homogenized’ data could be attributed to the Swedes.

    The Swedes said no.

    On the basis of this Jones and Acton conveyed the false impression to the parliamentary inquiry that the Swedes would not allow the release of their raw data.

    This is clearly documented.

    Resignations should follow.

  94. Is there a penalty for lies when giving “evidence” to a house committee?

  95. Re Micajah (14:11:34) and mpaul (15:36:24) :

    This is my understanding also as I read the attachments, and the cogent point that this letter from Mr Jones is sent long after FOI requests has been made was also made. Additionaly, to my understanding, Mr Jones has yet to release his version of the data refrenced, or his methods of altering it. Additionaly I have yet to see a copy of the original claimed, “non-disclosure agreements”. Please coreect me if I mistaken.

  96. Re: Leif Svalgaard (15:18:59)

    I agree that I should have qualified the statement more carefully.

    I encourage you to look at the material Corbyn has already provided. He talks fast in the presentations – and not all of the slides clearly convey what he says with words – but by rewinding the tapes and running calculations in parallel I’ve come to realize he actually has revealed a lot already. I understand his predicament. He does not have guaranteed secure, stable, generous, long-term income, as tenured professors do. It’s understandable that his priorities differ from what is normal in the mainstream science establishment.

  97. Re RockyRoad (15:45:36) : Saying –
    [Jones should divulge the homogenization algorithms and any other procedures he’s applied to the temperature datasets he publishes, all referenced against the raw data.]
    This was last done in 1991 when the US Dept of Energy (DoE) reprinted the two documentation books TR022 (Nth Hem) and TR027 (Sth Hem) which should have been read along with the 1986 Jones et al papers published in Journal of Applied Meteorology.
    This 1991 reprint has only been online since 20th Feb.
    “USA Dept of Energy Jones et al 1986 350 pages station documentation now online in pdf”

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=510

    Appendix A sets out all the stations Jones et al considered and lists corrections, where comparisons were made etc.
    Appendix B lists stations used.

  98. All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain. As is demonstrated in the attached correspondence between SMHI…

    No. The SMHI say their data is for non-commercial use. In many countries, “public domain” has a legal definition of usable for any purpose. Perhaps you meant to say “on the public record”. The leaked emails are on the public record, and are being used by many people, although various people hold the copyright to the messages.

  99. What is also clear is that SMHI is reluctant to be connected to data that has undergone “processing” by the East Anglia research unit.

    This gets my attention!

    Phil Jones and global warming keep getting painted into an ever smaller corner. Less and less room to continue creating ‘global warming’. Soon all they may have left is implosion.

  100. Scarlet Pumpernickel (17:07:18) :

    Is there a penalty for lies when giving “evidence” to a house committee?

    Of course. But unless Phil Jones cited specific examples with dates, etc., he will be able to claim that what he said about the Swedes was his impression of things. That would make it not a lie. Unless you can pin someone down with specifics (say, with a stained blue dress) perjury cannot stick.

  101. Quote:””Professor Jones: Yes. We have tried to go back to the countries and seven countries have said they would rather we did not release the copies of their data we have in our database.””

    Which is true. They did not want CRU releasing the massaged, manipulated data that CRU had in their data base.
    Remember, CRU destroyed their raw data.
    Uncle Phil is just not telling the whole truth.

    Quote: “”Professor Jones: Not in that way. We did, with the help of the Met Office, approach all the countries of the world and asked them whether we could release their data. We have had 59 replies of which 52 have been positive, so that has led to the release of 80% of the data, but we have had these seven negative responses which we talked about earlier, including Canada.””

    Yes, he talked about it earlier. The seven countries did not want CRU releasing CRU’s manipulated data, from CRU’s data base.

    Uncle Phil is lying by omission again.

    Quote: “”Q148 Graham Stringer: I will repeat it one more time and then I will shut up, Chairman. That does exclude checking and it does rather put you as a scientist above interested scientists who want to check up. It is the United States Department of Energy that funds you, is it not?””

    Quote: “”Professor Jones: Yes””

    This was a shock and news to me! Where have I been?

  102. I found only on major media report on why countries are refusing to release data through CRU. Bloomberg is one of the few news outlets based in America that is digging into and reporting Climategate.

    Bloomberg recently bought Business Week and is integrating it in its news network.

    Bloomberg has emerged as a major news network and has 2,200 news and multi-media professionals in 146 bureaus across 72 countries.

    An article in Bloomberg has a very large reader base.

    They are expanding while other news outlets shrink.

    And yes, I gave the reporter Morales the info and links on Wattsup info for any future updates.

    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-01/russia-canada-won-t-reveal-data-climategate-school-says.html

    Russia, Canada Keep Data, ‘Climategate’ School Says (Update1)

    By Alex Morales

    March 01, 2010, 5:35 PM EST

    Bloomberg/BUSINESSWEEK

    “March 1 (Bloomberg) — Canada and Russia are among nations that won’t allow the U.K. university at the center of the “climategate” leaked-e-mail dispute to release their temperature data, researchers at the school said.

    Seven of 59 nations asked to allow the University of East Anglia to release weather station data have declined, according to testimony given to a U.K. parliamentary committee today by Phil Jones, director of the school’s Climatic Research Unit, and UEA Vice Chancellor Edward Acton.” End quote

    Full Story at

    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-01/russia-canada-won-t-reveal-data-climategate-school-says.html

  103. Bottom line, Jones can’t make the data available that is required to check his calculations without the Swedes approval, even if it is a “different” dataset than what the Swedes keep themself. The Swedes still have partial ownership rights in Jones massaged version. The FOIA were about the data that Jones uses for CRUTEM, and he can’t release it without the Swedes approval even if they are very concerned that whatever indignities have been inflicted on it since they handed it over be clearly identified as not their responsibility. Further, it is not enough to say “there is no evidence the Swedes put limits on it originally”. They wouldn’t need to. You don’t get to give other peoples stuff away to third parties just because they didn’t say you couldn’t –they have to affirmatively say you *can*. They don’t lose their rights because they didn’t make a point of asserting them at the time.

  104. I’ve eventually found, after an intense search, where the Met Office has released it’s data. Somehow I get the feeling they didn’t really want anyone to find it.

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/subsets.html

    if you scroll down past the FAQs there is a zip file released in Jan 2010 available to download – 8meg.

    Unzip it and you get 99 folders numbered 1 – 99.

    Open each folder and you get a number of dat files which then open in wordpad as text data of different stations. There is no format or anything to figure which country is which as they are all over the place.

    I figured Australia might be on the bottom at 99 – well there are a couple there like COOLGARDIE 1931 – 1939 but it s a dog’s breakfast.

    I’d have to go through each of the 99 folders and each of the 10 – 15 files in each folder to find CRU’s data on Australia!

  105. I found a great one for Elbing – Poland.
    data set from 1829 – 2009

    1843 – 1991 all temps are -99.0

  106. Six data sets went quack quack quack
    One data set never came back

    And that’s about the maturity level of data handling.

  107. re geo (18:46)

    You said “Bottom line, Jones can’t make the data available that is required to check his calculations without the Swedes approval…” No, that is not the bottom line. What Jones said in this letter is that he does not have the original data. One cannot check Jones’ calculations with out the original data and with out the code that Jones used to process the data.

    Bottom line is that Jones’ results cannot be reproduced.

  108. CRU / Jones is basing their analysis off of just 8 meg. of data and having problems with keeping track of it?

    I have been pushing around 19.9 gig of raw data, on my home pc with out a problem, after processing into daily maps for five parameters, and archiving the CSV files and grid files, it only runs 223.8 gigs total before up loading to server, where it takes up 187 gig of HD space.

    My total budget expense, compared to his, is smaller than the percent of CO2, by two orders of magnitude, what is wrong with this picture??

  109. @Robert Burns (19:55:41) :

    That remains to be seen. So far as I can tell, there are two data manipulation points (or possibly three).

    1). Turning “Swede I” into “Swede II” (and all the others of course)
    2). Manipulating all the “II” versions into CRUTEM

    Getting Swede II (and all the other II versions, of course) into public answers half the need, if the software code that does it is also included –and Hadley’s version that produces the same results is already publicly available, is my understanding.

    If you look upstream, you’ll find my concerns about replicating step 1). . . you may be right. But we haven’t had that hurdle in front of us to clear yet. I can foresee the likliehood of bruised shins, but I prefer to wait for the actual event.

  110. http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/prods_servs/index_e.html#cdcd

    The Canadian station data is in the link above. Won’t unzip on windows7, not sure why.

    The larger issue to me is not the whole trail about who asked for what when. The issue is that raw data was used to create “value added” data and nothing seems available as to what mathematical operations were performed to arrive at the value added data. This means that should an error have been made in methodology in the first place, the error would propogate through to each new version of the data. With no record of the original data, it cannot be compared to Sweden’s record to determine if there are differences between their current records and the ones Jones started with, and if there were errors in the very first mathematical operations, there is no way to even identify them, let alone back them out of any later versions.

    This isn’t data anymore. This is just a series of numbers that can at best be called an approximation.

  111. “What is also clear is that SMHI is reluctant to be connected to data that has undergone “processing” by the East Anglia research unit.”

    Here we have the money quote ladies and gentlemen.

  112. Paul Vaughan (17:22:24) :
    It’s understandable that his priorities differ from what is normal in the mainstream science establishment.
    If he can demonstrate that his claims are true, they are worth not the trifle he gets from his business, but billions [and he would get his share for sure and be set for life], so I don’t understand his predicament, unless he knows that he can’t demonstrate anything, in which case I do understand his predicament.

  113. geo (18:46:15)

    Bottom line, Jones can’t make the data available that is required to check his calculations without the Swedes approval, even if it is a “different” dataset than what the Swedes keep themself. The Swedes still have partial ownership rights in Jones massaged version. The FOIA were about the data that Jones uses for CRUTEM, and he can’t release it without the Swedes approval even if they are very concerned that whatever indignities have been inflicted on it since they handed it over be clearly identified as not their responsibility.

    Well, since I made the first FOI for this data, I can assure you that you are wrong. Jones refused to release the data to me because he said that some of it (2% by his figures) was covered by confidentiality agreements. (Of course in the fullness of time we found out that he couldn’t release it because he had lost it … but I digress). He didn’t say at the time “I lost it”, he said “confidentiality”.

    So I said fine, then release all but the 2% … but he said he couldn’t do that because of sunspots, no, because I might try to find fault with it, no … hang on, I’ll look at my correspondence … oh, yeah, because it was available on the web … somewhere. When I asked where, they wouldn’t answer. Useless.

    Further, it is not enough to say “there is no evidence the Swedes put limits on it originally”. They wouldn’t need to. You don’t get to give other peoples stuff away to third parties just because they didn’t say you couldn’t –they have to affirmatively say you *can*. They don’t lose their rights because they didn’t make a point of asserting them at the time.

    Nonsense. Jones made a clear distinction to me between the 98% of the data that theoretically could be released because it was not covered by a confidentiality agreement, and the 2% that could not be released because it was covered. Your claim is simply not true.

    So then I and others filed an FOI asking for the confidentiality agreements. They pulled up three or four pieces of paper, only one of which restricted redistribution. Ooops … sorry, they said, but they had lost the rest of the confidentiality agreements. None of these was from Sweden. So all of their excuses turned out to be totally bogus.

    Finally they ‘fessed up that they can’t locate the raw data that their whole edifice is based on. The dog ate their homework. So they were lying from day one, just shucking and jiving to avoid telling the truth — they lost the data.

    Now, they’ve written to Sweden to ask if they can release the massaged Swedish data. The Swedes, reasonably, said no way. You can’t release the munged data and call it the Swedish raw data.

    So in fact, Jones et al.’s whole CRUTEM and HadCRUT “adjusted” datasets are merely apocryphal. The raw data is lost, gone. They released what they claimed at the time was the raw data, but it’s not. It is merely the CRUcified data, so it is useless.

    So there is nothing scientific about the CRUTEM and HadCRUT adjusted datasets, because they cannot be replicated. And replication, as we know, is the core of science.

    As a result, the UK Met Office (the “Had” part of the HadCRUT “adjusted” data) has decided to start over, and reassemble the raw data from scratch. They know, even if you haven’t noticed, that everything that the CRU now has has is useless unverifiable junk. Despite your claim, they know that there is no way to “check [Jones’s] calculations”. The game is over.

    End of story.

  114. Willis –I’m confused. Are you saying Jones reports are reliable or not reliable? You seem to be arguing both. Do you believe in independent truth, regardless of Jones (or yours, or mine) representation of what it is? The moons of Jupiter didn’t start revolving around Jupiter only when Galileo trained his telescope on them, right? Whether Jones was willing to give it to you (or anyone else) some years ago, is entirely independent of his legal right to do so, yes? Up to a certain date his ability to get away with flying under the legal radar in servicing his favorites (and denying those not on the list) was probably a great deal more than it is today under the world-wide scrutiny he’s been receiving. . . do you agree with that proposition or not?

  115. janama (19:24:14) : you say –
    [I’d have to go through each of the 99 folders and each of the 10 – 15 files in each folder to find CRU’s data on Australia!]
    Heavens above it is not quite that obscure. Australian data (and PNG) WMO numbers start 94 – so go to the UKMO folder 94.
    To know the Australian WMO station numbers;

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/crudata.htm

    scroll down to link; Jones/CRU/UKMO list 4138 stations 2009 pre ClimateGate
    Might be available at the CRU site somewhere.
    That txt file gives you all the WMO numbers for global stations incl Australia.
    So you can go to the exact file you want in the UKMO heap of folders.

  116. geo (22:13:05) : edit

    Willis –I’m confused. Are you saying Jones reports are reliable or not reliable? You seem to be arguing both. Do you believe in independent truth, regardless of Jones (or yours, or mine) representation of what it is? The moons of Jupiter didn’t start revolving around Jupiter only when Galileo trained his telescope on them, right? Whether Jones was willing to give it to you (or anyone else) some years ago, is entirely independent of his legal right to do so, yes? Up to a certain date his ability to get away with flying under the legal radar in servicing his favorites (and denying those not on the list) was probably a great deal more than it is today under the world-wide scrutiny he’s been receiving. . . do you agree with that proposition or not?

    The existence of agreements saying you can’t redistribute the data clearly means that without such an agreement you can redistribute the data …

  117. I see Jones being demoted,not fired.I see another scientist taking up the reins using the data that is available to carry on the work.You will never know if the original data exists under the current government in the UK.
    A new government may look at ways of getting the UK out from under the burden placed on the people by AGW proponents.
    When do they release the emission stats for 2009-2010?
    I am interested in seeing how much China’s emissions have gone up over the past year.

  118. Canadian data is here:

    http://climat.meteo.gc.ca/prods_servs/index_e.html

    From Licence agreament:

    “REDISTRIBUTION RESTRICTIONS – You are authorized to further distribute the data or software, including any portion of it, contained in this product under the following conditions only. No fee will be charged explicitly for this Environment Canada product to any party to whom it is distributed. (Charges for value-added services are permitted.). In consideration of the license you are herein granted, you have the obligation to acknowledge the source of the Environment Canada Data with the following layout or something similar: based on Environment Canada data. Redistribution must occur so that any other party must agree to the same redistribution restrictions before use of the redistributed product is allowed. “

  119. @Willis Eschenbach (22:38:16)

    That’s argument by assertion, Willis.

    For instance, let’s look at copyright law in the US. You don’t have to mark a piece of writing as copyrighted at the time, nor register it with the copyright office at the time of origination, in order to claim your copyright rights on that document years down the road. You can do so at the the time of origination, of course, but it isn’t required.

    By your theory, that some people choose to communicate their rights explicitly up front requires that anyone who doesn’t so choose has none. Simply not true.

  120. “Heavens above it is not quite that obscure.”

    Thank you Warwick – I’ve since sorted it out and realised you are correct. :)

  121. geo (23:46:53) : edit

    @Willis Eschenbach (22:38:16)

    That’s argument by assertion, Willis.

    For instance, let’s look at copyright law in the US. You don’t have to mark a piece of writing as copyrighted at the time, nor register it with the copyright office at the time of origination, in order to claim your copyright rights on that document years down the road. You can do so at the the time of origination, of course, but it isn’t required.

    By your theory, that some people choose to communicate their rights explicitly up front requires that anyone who doesn’t so choose has none. Simply not true.

    You are right that a copyright exists without marking it. However, no one (to my knowledge) has ever claimed that if someone gives me garden variety scientific data, that the data is covered under copyright and therefore I can’t distribute it. If that is so, you’d better tell all the scientists of the world, because they certainly don’t believe that.

    Why don’t they believe it? Because in general, scientific data are not covered by copyright. I find:

    In Feist, the Supreme Court rejected the “sweat of the brow” doctrine that provided copyright protection for databases and compilation based upon the effort use to created the compilation. Instead, the court decided that compilations and databases are protected by copyright only when they are arranged and selected in an original manner. Although the level of originality needed is not very high, the white pages of a phone books are not protectable because the selection of the data (all customers in a geographic area) and the arrangement of the data (in alphabetical order) were not sufficiently original as to come under the protection of the Copyright Act.

    In other words, just like the white pages in a phone book, a list of stations and temperatures is NOT COVERED BY COPYRIGHT.

    Nice try, though. As I said, that’s why agreements not to re-distribute data exist … because without them, there is no such protection.

  122. Noelen:”I see Jones being demoted,not fired.I see another scientist taking up the reins using the data that is available to carry on the work.”

    Without the raw data being available the Hadcrut data set is worthless because it can’t be verified. Think about that, 20 years of using unverifiable data. For sure the warmist camp have circled the wagons but apart from the ridiculous Professor Acton there must be many people extremely upset that Jones’ incompetence and mendacity has brought down the CRU. They will probably sideline him as you say but his career is finished, he’s a busted flush.

    His mum should have told him about playing with boys like Michael Mann.

  123. there seems to be an awful lot of question marks about what is available as RAW DATA , is the output of the Swedish met office RAW DATA or has it been homoginised, adjusted for UHE etc. before being released. Is the country data available from the UEA in RAW FORM or only as homoinised by UAE or is it adjusted by the various Met Offices before being sent to UEA. I’m getting more confused every day. Basically I just want RAW DATA I’ll do my own adjustments thank you, then see if it matches.

  124. SMHI response 21 Dec ’09:

    “Given the information that the version of the data from the SMHI stations that you hold are likely to differ from the data we hold, SMHI do not want the data to be released on your web site.”

    Isn’t there an ambiguity here? What is the data that the SMHI doesn’t want released on Jones’ Web site? One assumes it definitely includes SMHI’s own version, but couldn’t it also include Jones’ version?

    Whatever, if I’d read that, I would have interpreted it as meaning at the very least that the SMHI didn’t want me to release their version of the data on my site. Fair enough. But they also say that they are developing a Web site that currently releases some of their own data and will in time release more.

    Hence, by 1st March ’10, the date of the parliamentary hearing, it would not be possible to say with complete honesty that SMHI was refusing to release their data.

    Complete and correct information would have been that the Swedes were quite happy to release their data (at least part of it immediately, and more in the future) for non-commercial use on their own Web site. However, they did not want it released on Jones’ Web site.

    The information that Sweden was one of the countries refusing to release data was volunteered. Anyone listening to the enquiry would have assumed that Sweden had refused to make the data available, not that they had actually indicated they WOULD and to some extent ALREADY HAD made it available.

    So just on the basis of the SMHI response of 21 Dec ‘09, disregarding anything else, the claim made by the Stockholm Initiative group that the statement at the enquiry was “misleading” does seem to be supported by the evidence.

    As to whether it was also “false”, well, certainly the impression given at the hearing was false. I watched it, and I definitely took away the understanding that the Swedes were refusing to allow the data to be released, and by that I also understood, rightly or wrongly, that CRU held data which was the actual Swedish data, not a version of it that differed from the latter.

    It’s now not clear whether the actual Swedish data is raw or manipulated on its own account, or, conceivably, whether both raw and manipulated data are available from the Swedes.

    And this is the problem: little seems clear and transparent when it comes to climate surface temperature data. Why is there this consistent picture of confusion? We can lay aside all accusations of impropriety if we wish, but we are still left with deep uncertainties about data and code, etc.

    Purely on those grounds, we cannot accept at face value anything that Jones and anyone else directly involved with analysis of the data have said in papers based on that. Nor, on papers by many other researchers that, quite probably completely innocently, rely on their results, because there appears to be no way at present to backtrack and replicate the work all the way from original raw data.

    For all we know, there is a large number of papers that ought to be retracted in light of this. It’s absolutely astonishing that this is the situation given that there is so much at stake in the climate debate. How can anyone, for or against AGW, rest easy with the hypothesis? How can anyone not want to get at the truth purely for its own sake?

  125. “Canada releases its temperature data to anyone who requests it,” Brigitte Lemay, a spokeswoman with Environment Canada, said in an e-mailed response. “We have in the past and we will continue to make our data public. All Environment Canada official climatic data is made available without restriction to the public through our web site.”

  126. geo (20:36:06) :

    @Robert Burns (19:55:41) :

    That remains to be seen. So far as I can tell, there are two data manipulation points (or possibly three).

    1). Turning “Swede I” into “Swede II” (and all the others of course)
    2). Manipulating all the “II” versions into CRUTEM
    …………………………………

    It is not just Sweden that might pass massaged data to CRU, while keeping their truly raw data at home.

    Unfortunately, it is more complex by far. There are countries which are running quality improvement programs, creating un-numbered version after version of their country set, perhaps several times a year. The adjusters might have a record of what was in a version supplied by the collecting country some years ago, but I do not discern an attempt to keep the adjusters up to date with successive country versions. Some country data I have seen rejected by the host country has been continued in use by the adjusters, leading in part to a small estimate of the effect of man-made adjustment.

    Some of the complexity of this was seen in the Darwin exercise. It would not surprise me to find at least a dozen data strings over the last century, all from Darwin, that are justifiable in some way by the adjusters, but far, far from matching each other today.

    Now feed that problem into the thousands of stations that adjusters use and you might conclude that the problem has grown beyond management. I’m arriving at a conclusion that there has been trivial actual Global Warming in the last century.

    Would someone like to show me I’m wrong?

    Sort of changes the urgency for mitigation, uh?

  127. janama (00:13:42) : You say;
    [We don’t know what CRU is – max, min , mean?]
    IPCC AGW as defined for over 20yrs by Jones et al/CRU/UKMO is mean monthly T.

  128. Re: Leif Svalgaard (21:49:11)

    Even with a major contribution, harsh criticism would be focused on whatever remains unexplained (and there are loose ends). A glass-half-full reception in the near-term would have been more likely without the wrapping of successful long-range forecasts in an anti-CO2 flag. Science vs. politics or science and politics? I would bet on the latter in this case.

  129. Has anyone considered that the current position of the Swedes is not necessarily the same as at the time of the FOI requests? Seeing as how they are only now putting their data in the public domain, I think that these letters serve to show that they didn’t want their data made available at the time of those requests.

  130. @geo (15:11:49) :

    “The thing I actually get mad at Jones the most about, is he is the only one who truly understood over the last 20 years what a hash up this was. . . .and he did nothing about it.”

    I think that saying Jones was “the only one” totally overlooks another major actor in this saga: namely Trevor Davies (director 93-98). Davies (currently Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research and Knowledge Transfer) was present at the Science and Technology Sun-Committee seated directly behind Jones and Acton and passing notes mainly to Acton.

    “Sometime in the mid-to-late ’90s when it was becoming apparent how important this stuff is, he should have started rectifying these issues on his own and maybe by 2007 he would have had a product he wasn’t ashamed for the world to see the innards of. Whatever excuses he might make to himself about “1980s standards”, the reality he is he had a long time *after that* to get his house in order, and did nothing.”

    You are quite correct, however, in saying that Jones had ample opportunity to act during his co-directorship (98-04) and directorship (04-) and appears to have done nothing.

    Thats assuming that the adjustments were not of not overwhelming!

  131. The Stockholm Initiative are being completely unfair to Dr. Jones.
    SMHI said “no” in December 2009, Dr. Jones reported that they had said “no” on March 1, 2010.

    The Stockholm Initiative accuses him of giving a false and misleading statement based on a letter explaining that the “no” should be interpreted as “yes, but with clarifications” on March 4!

    Why attack Dr. Jones when he IS trying to share the data?

  132. Paul Vaughan (02:41:13) :
    Even with a major contribution, harsh criticism would be focused on whatever remains unexplained
    One cannot criticize what has not been explained. One cannot accept it either.

  133. “Dr. Jones asserted that the weather services of several countries, including Sweden, Canada and Poland, had refused to allow their data to be released, to explain his reluctance to comply with Freedom of Information requests.
    “This statement is false and misleading in regards to the Swedish data.”

    And, as cited by my Overlord, Willis Eschenbach at (01:21:42), is also false in regards to the Canadian data.

    In Doc Jones’ testimony, he mentioned “Sweden, Canada and Russia” — and Russia’s data is open-source.

    So, if the statements he made in regards to obtaining data are false, by what metric are we to accept the truth of any of his other statements?

  134. geo (20:36:06) :

    geo wrote “That remains to be seen. So far as I can tell, there are two data manipulation points (or possibly three). 1). Turning “Swede I” into “Swede II” (and all the others of course) 2). Manipulating all the “II” versions into CRUTEM”

    Which part of my post where you referring to with “That remains to be seen.”? Jones doesn’t have the original data?, or that his work cannot be reproduced?

    In fact it may be even worse because he may not even know how he processed the original data, because if he had control of the processing he had done, he could reverse engineer to get the original data. I think he hinted at that in one of the leaked e-mails. Perhaps Harry (from the leaked files) is right and the processing code is such a mis-mash that no one knows how or why the data was processed by Jones.

    Therefore, it is also possible that even Jones could not reproduce his own results if the original data was found.

  135. From SMHI homepage (Google tranlation)

    3.2 The Licensee owns no right to use the data or products provided under this agreement for commercial purposes and not for development or production of meteorological, hydrological and oceanographic value added-value services. The licensee does not own nor authorized to redistribute, sell, assign or otherwise transfer data products or documentation without further processing to third parties unless the parties have received written permission from SMHI.

    4th Privacy

    4.1 The licensee is not entitled to publish, communicate, link to or otherwise disseminate the contents of the data and / or products obtained in accordance with this Agreement to any third party.

    5.1 SMHI guarantee, if not otherwise specified, the data and / or products
    delivered under this Agreement has been the usual quality control. SMHI
    does not guarantee the accuracy of the information provided, the data represent or
    they can be used for that purpose the user intends.

  136. Turboblocke (03:51:19) :

    “Has anyone considered that the current position of the Swedes is not necessarily the same as at the time of the FOI requests? Seeing as how they are only now putting their data in the public domain, I think that these letters serve to show that they didn’t want their data made available at the time of those requests.”

    Not really true because here in Sweden you can ask for release of data (what ever) and no one can refuse to release them. It is big crime to do that

  137. It seems this Jones guy is just unable to tell the truth. Twisting the “progressive” phrase to suit, he “Lies to Power”.
    As the rest of his crew run down the rat-lines, Phil remains on deck. Saluting with one hand, crossing his fingers with the other; lying with all his heart.

  138. The Stockholm Initiative is a private organisation that is anti-global warming mitigation. This is what it says about the person who wrote the ‘press release':

    Göran Ahlgren, tekn. dr. docent organic chemistry. Active at the Royal Institute of Tecnology until 1990. After that active as an entrepreneur and consultant. Engaged in climate politics since several years.

    The refer to themselves as ‘climate realists’ – and their site suggests they are not in favour of any action that would mitigate global warming. It states in part:

    “Do you think that the ongoing and planned climate policy measures are meaningless and constitutes a gigantic waste of resources that will increase poverty and jeopardize our environment?”

    Why is WUWT even posting this article?

  139. Sou (07:36:57),

    Why the ad hominem attacks? The relevant statement seems clear:

    “All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain.”

  140. doc111209 has Jones asking SMHI if he can release the data for 30 Swedish stations that has been recovered from multiple sources over the last 30 years, and has been homogenized and quality controlled, by implication by CRU. He says it’s highly likely that the data he wants to publish will differ from the data held by SMHI.

    SMHI replies that given that since the data Jones proposes to release as coming from SMHI is different from that held by SMHI, it withholds its consent. It offers Jones access to its own data.

    SMHI is being reasonable – it does not want its data misrepresented.

    If Jones was acting in good faith he would have replied to SMHI saying that in the light of its concerns he would release his modified data under the heading “CRU Multiple Sourced, Quality Controlled, Homogenized Version of Swedish Data”.

    But he did not, instead stating that SMHI had refused release of its data.

    That was misleading.

  141. Smokey (07:50:46)
    What ad hominem attacks? All I did was quote from the website of the Stockholm Initiative.

    That private lobby group (Stockholm Initiative) has put out a press release (as above) that made false allegations as shown in the pdf files (also above).

    At the hearings UEA stated that although some services had not given permission for the Met or CRU to publish the data, most countries made the point that the data was available by approaching those countries directly. That is entirely consistent with the documentation provided above.

  142. janama (19:24:14) :
    I’ve eventually found, after an intense search, where the Met Office has released it’s data. Somehow I get the feeling they didn’t really want anyone to find it.

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/subsets.html

    Below is a couple of the “frequently asked” questions from that webpage:

    2. What about the underlying data?
    Underlying data are held by the National Meterological Services and other data providers and such data have in many cases been released for research purposes under specific licences that govern their usage and distribution.

    It is important to distinguish between the data released by the NMSs and the truly raw data. e.g. the temperature readings noted by the observer. The data may have been adjusted to take account of non climatic influences, for example changes in observations methods, and in some cases this adjustment may not have been recorded so it may not be possible to recreate the original data as recorded by the observer.

    Back to top
    3. Why is there no comprehensive copy of the underlying data?
    The data set of temperatures, which are provided as a gridded product back to 1850 was largely compiled in the 1980s when it was technically difficult and expensive to keep multiple copies of the database.

    For IT infrastructure of the time this was an exceedingly large database and multiple copies could not be kept at a reasonable cost. There is no question that anything untoward or unacceptable in terms of best practices at the time occurred.

    Back to top

    So, Jones is stating that there are 3 datsets in some cases;
    1. the original raw data,
    2. the data adjusted by the National Meterological Services of a particular country,
    3.CRU readjusted previously adjusted spam.

    He then blames lack of IT storage for not storing multiple copies???….WUWT.

    As to which set of data he, or anyone else is specifically referring to, ask the dog.

    But rest assured, There is no question that anything untoward or unacceptable in terms of best practices at the time occurred.

    I love a well-fed canine.

  143. Forgot to add;

    and in some cases this adjustment may not have been recorded so it may not be possible to recreate the original data as recorded by the observer.

    I’m depressed.

  144. Re: Leif Svalgaard (06:06:09)

    Note the hypothetical “would”.

    Explanation or not, people see the successful forecasts.

  145. I agree with Jeremy Thomas. What Jones and Acton do is definitely misleading. The reluctance of SMHI to allow CRU to publish the “value-added” data as SMHI’s is just another obstacle for Jones to “hide behind”. And it is not fair to the Parlament Committee to give the impression that some countries do not want their data to be published. The data from SMHI could, as far as I understand, have been published years ago.

    Much more serious is the reluctance of the CRU-team to be open about how they have reconstructed the Nordic temperature curve. See the following report of the climategate letters by Willis Eschenbach:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/when-results-go-bad/, see also

    http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/scandinavian-temperatures-ipccacutes–scandinavia-gate–127.php?id=127

    You may read about the Stockholm Initiative here:

    http://www.stockholminitiative.com/eng/about-us

    Ingemar Nordin /member of SI

  146. Smokey: “All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain.”

    The point at issue is whether Jones was authorised to release the Swedish data. The Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute says no, as per the communication dated 21 December 2009:

    “Given the information that the version of the data from the SMHI stations that you hold are likely to differ from the data we hold, SMHI do not want the data to be released on your web site. “

    That is, SMHI does not want its original data to be released on the CRU website. The second communication is a clarification which does not change the thrust of the first. Therefore, the information given to the UK Parliamentary enquiry was correct.

    One compelling reason for the SMHI policy of making a clear distinction between the sources of data is the sort of confusion we’ve seen in this thread.

    Interestingly, given the focus on processing data, the SMHI communications have themselves undergone a kind of double processing: first by the Stockholm Initiative in its press release, and then by the person who wrote the headline to the story that heads this thread.

  147. The data from SMHI could, as far as I understand, have been published years ago.

    Anyone can go to the SMHI website and download data but you have to agree not to disseminate it. I believe the website that includes the confidentiality agreement is here:

    http://data.smhi.se/met/climate/time_series/html/essential20.html

    Apparently, the SMHI wishes to retain the raw data so it can sell it commercially and if people can publish it anywhere they choose or send it to whomever they want, they would lose this ability.

    3.2 The Licensee owns no right to use the data or products provided under this agreement for commercial purposes and not for development or production of meteorological, hydrological and oceanographic value added-value services. The licensee does not own nor authorized to redistribute, sell, assign or otherwise transfer data products or documentation without further processing to third parties unless the parties have received written permission from SMHI.

  148. re Brendan H (12:13:48) :

    You said “The point at issue is whether Jones was authorised to release the Swedish data. ” That is not the point at issue. The point at issue is that he does not have the data he started with, the data that was ‘raw’ to him, and without that data his work cannot be reproduced, cannot be confirmed or rejected.

    All else is smoke and mirrors to confuse and obstruct. His letter to the SMHI and their answers is about data AFTER the CUR manipulated the data, not the raw (to Jones) data needed to reproduce his work… again smoke and mirrors. Jones talks about ‘value added data’ which changes the subject from raw (to him) data. It is also not known that one could reproduce his work even if one had his value added data, because AFAIK he has not released the code.

  149. @Robert Burns (06:55:37) :

    I mean the reproducibility point, and yes I pointed out pretty much the same thing you did right there in one of my posts a few back that Jones may not be able to provide enough detail on what he did to the old data before he stored what is really an “intermediate result” as data instead.

    Having said that, obviously this is not a dead data set. They are still adding new data to it every month. I wonder what the processes done to new data are like, and how data and adjustments are stored. Depending on the answer, that might possibly provide a path towards making at least a stab at reverse engineering the old data set.

    But really it more and more feels like they need to toss it all out and start over again from the real raw data, stored that way, and a separate store of business rules (versioned and archived as they change) applied to it each time results are needed. Then see how close those new results come to the old results. That might be about the best that can be done now.

  150. Robert Burns: “The point at issue is that he does not have the data he started with…”

    Look again. Here are the claims (numbers added) made by the Stockholm Initiative in the above press release.

    “(1) Dr. Jones asserted that the weather services of several countries, including Sweden, Canada and Poland, had refused to allow their data to be released, to explain his reluctance to comply with Freedom of Information requests.
    (2) This statement is false and misleading in regards to the Swedish data.
    (3) All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain.”

    Claim (1) is misleading. Jones said the Swedes et al had refused to allow him to release the data, not that they had refused to release the data themselves. Claim (3) is correct; the data is publicly available.

    Claim (2) is itself both false and misleading. As shown by the communications from the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute to Jones, it did not want the original SMHI data to be released from the CRU website.

  151. Re: Leif Svalgaard (11:41:44)

    85% success with forecasts. 15% failure. Both visible (to anyone paying attention).

  152. Brendan H (20:18:27) :

    What data are we talking about? The data Jones asked for permission to release is not the original data. As per Jones letter “…the data we hold has arisen from multiple sources, and has been recovered over the last 30 years. Subsequent quality control and homogenisation of the data have been carried out.” This is not the data that is needed to reproduce Jones work.

    This was explained by many posters here. An example is by
    Jeremy (15:42:53) :

    So, the cliff-notes rundown now…

    0) CRU makes gridded temperature anomaly charts of the globe.
    1) Original data is “lost”, Value-added data retained.
    2) Bloggers request original data and methods from Jones.
    3) CRU Stonewalls and drags their feet.
    4) When finally called out, CRU says, “we can’t due to agreements with other people.”
    5) Climategate e-mails are leaked.
    6) It is at this point that CRU finally asks for permission to release from other orgs who supposedly wont allow it.
    7) Other orgs say, “If you only have your manipulated data, then don’t release a thing.”
    8) CRU claims before MPs they cannot release their data at all.
    9) Scientists fail to call out their peers for malfeasance.

    Please re-read the post by Willis Eschenbach (21:49:29) of 5/3/10. The data in question is the data Willis requested. All the discussion about the data referred to in Jones’s letter is a red herring and a smoke screen because it is not the data Willis asked for.

  153. From Environment Canada, don’t just ask for a data dump for the climate monitoring stations but also the calculated gridded climate data, which is the data sets used by the climate models. The data from http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca is verified recorded data and has gaps.

  154. Let’s face it, the world’s climate data base would take up giga if not tera bytes of space and would need a good data base to handle it. Plus the models have been modified to use gridded data, each parameter is estimated for each world grid, about 4° by 6°.

    Too bad we cannot trust the two or three groups that have taken the effort to produce the data or the 7 or 8 organizations that wrote their models to use only gridded data.

    My level of trust about climate analysis drops more every time Gore, Hanson, Jones or Weaver open their mouths.

  155. Paul Vaughan (20:57:50) :
    85% success with forecasts. 15% failure. Both visible (to anyone paying attention).
    Says he in sales promotional material. Not verified. There is a standard meteorological skill score calculation. Corbyn does not use the standard, as far as I can see.

  156. Paul Vaughan (20:57:50) :
    85% success with forecasts. 15% failure. Both visible (to anyone paying attention).
    If I say the weather tomorrow will be like today, I also get a 85% success rate [depending a bit on location]. The success rate should be adjusted for persistence. I don’t see him do that. Perhaps, you can point me to a relevant citation.

  157. Robert Burns: “What data are we talking about? The data Jones asked for permission to release is not the original data.”

    Yes, but it was the data that he had. SMHI said they did not want him to release that data as the original or “raw” Swedish data; rather, that they would make the original data available on their own website.

    The accusation being made against Jones is:

    “Dr. Jones asserted that the weather services of several countries, including Sweden, Canada and Poland, had refused to allow their data to be released, to explain his reluctance to comply with Freedom of Information requests.”

    This is not quite correct. Compare with the Guardian report:

    “Jones said some issues raised by the emails, such as an apparent reluctance to comply with Freedom of Information requests, were because the CRU did not have permission to release requested data, which had been supplied by foreign weather services. Several countries, including Sweden, Canada and Poland had refused to allow their information to be supplied, he said.”

    The crucial difference in accounts is: “…the CRU did not have permission to release requested data.” The Stockholm Initiative press release neglects to mention this important factor.

    The focus on the various versions of the data only muddies the waters. The important factors are:

    1. Did Jones have permission to release the original Swedish data?
    2. Was his statement to the UK Parliamentary enquiry correct?

    Going from the reports available, the answers are No and Yes, hence the Stockholm Initiative accusation is false.

  158. Brendan H (12:13:48),

    IIRC, many of the original data requests and FOIA complaints were from people like Willis, McKitrick and McIntyre, who had no interest in commercializing the data, but who only wanted to verify CRU’s conclusions.

    Instead of complying, Jones and his cohorts stonewalled at every opportunity. Now they’re playing word games to try and explain why they refused to cooperate with requests for data – data that they provided to their pals, but not to other scientists:

    See here and here and here to understand the mind-set of Phil Jones and others at CRU, who resorted to devious and unethical [and largely successful] attempts to deny publicly funded information and to game the peer review process.

  159. Smokey–

    I don’t know how Steve McI would have dealt with that kind of license restriction in his framework of doing business. What Steve typically does is make the data available with the code used to manipulate it, and thus allows others to confirm, tweak, re-argue, whatever.

    With that license not allowing redistribution, then Steve’s usual methodology for transparency is prevented. So what does he do at that point? I don’t know. It would certainly be unsatisfying (to Steve, I suspect, and to others I’m fairly sure) if Steve would have been forced into the same kind of “trust me” reporting that Jones has been engaged in for so many years based on license restrictions.

  160. Do we even know the actual number of discrete data providers are involved in CRUTEM? Jones has pointed at USHCN as a major one, but do we have an actual count of how many there are? Not how many stations –how many providers?

    Do we know if they provide their data in a consistent format? Or, if not, how many different formats they do provide in? For example, there could be 1,200 stations. . . 100 providers. . . . 65 formats (numbers pulled from thin air for example purposes).

    I’m still struggling with how a guy like Steve McI could do what he does how he usually does it, if he doesn’t have the right to redistribute data. One thought that occurred to me is if you have links to all the data sources, you could provide the links to get the data you can’t hand out yourself. But it seems to me that quickly becomes untenable if there are too many links, and too much pre-processing of different formats into one consistent format to front end your subsequent data processing.

  161. Leif Svalgaard (14:23:43) :

    “The Stockholm Initiative is an Advocacy group started by these folks:
    http://www.issa.int/ and does not represent the Swedish Meteorological Institute.”

    Leif, I don’t know if you are trying to be funny or are just making things up (the started by these folks… part). Anyway, the Stockholm Initiative in question was not started by the International Social Security Association. What most, but not all, of the founders have in common is that they have studied or held academic positions at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm.

  162. geo (07:03:33),

    Good point. But I can’t get over the impression that Jones is simply offering excuses to cover his bad data and sloppy/non-existent record keeping, rather than proposing reasonable solutions to what is apparently a minor problem, if that. A formal request to share data with M&M would have made his position look reasonable now. Instead, he acted as if M&M were enemies, instead of scientists looking for the truth of the matter.

    And the actions and comments of the CRU folks don’t instill confidence that they can not share information, when they share it with their friends.

    Have any of them simply asked for a waiver to share the data with other scientists? No. They hide behind putative “agreements,” which they haven’t posted as requested by a number of different individuals.

    It comes down to whom you choose to believe. Personally, I don’t believe Jones. His emails show him to be devious and conniving, as do his recent vague responses under questioning.

    But he does get some sympathy from me, since it is clear that he is only one of many in that clique who acted in the same way.

  163. Jones and Acton have weaved a tangled web. At Bishop Hill, AJStrata has an interesting idea about all the other countries now figuring out what Sweden has about the machinations of the UEA. And, bottom line, Jones hasn’t got raw data anymore. The temperature record, HadCru, underlying so many papers, is not replicable, and thus, should not and cannot be used.

    We are starting over. And it’s about time. Much time has been utterly wasted by the jokers at UEA.
    ==========

  164. Toho (07:16:16) :
    Leif Svalgaard (14:23:43) :

    “The Stockholm Initiative is an Advocacy group started by these folks:
    http://www.issa.int/ and does not represent the Swedish Meteorological Institute.”

    I wonder where you get this from too? It is my impression that SI is a group of volounteers, just like us, trying to fight the warmista’s ? Just like many here do.

    So, it seems to me you try the warmista-approach. “Its Big Oil (or Big Insurance) , so dont listen to them!!!”

    Not good.

  165. “Jan Pompe (16:24:26) :
    Does it alter the fact that contrary to Phil Jones testimony to the hearing in the commons that Swedish climate data is public domain?”

    Have you looked at their site? Their public domain data is from 1961 to 2008, mainly – sometimes less. their are 2 long term sets for upsaala and stocholm – derived like CET.

    I am plotting all of the sites Jones used (only anout 50% are on their web page. Currently this is showing 4degC/century rise. when I get board with adding others I will give a link.
    /harry

  166. “Leif Svalgaard (15:18:59) :
    Paul Vaughan (14:50:37) :
    If you think Corbyn is wrong, please explain where you think he is wrong.
    You are wrong in asserting that any one of your two curves ‘explains’ the other. About Corbyn, I can’t comment on something he won’t publish.”

    If corbyn has found the holy grail to climate, then with vast fortunes resting on AGW or noAGW shouldnt he be forced to reveal his methods (with suitable payments perhaps)

    As many have said – “!free the data – free the code!”

    /harry

  167. “Willis Eschenbach (22:38:16) :
    The existence of agreements saying you can’t redistribute the data clearly means that without such an agreement you can redistribute the data …”

    Willis this is wrong! If the copyrighted info page ina book gets torn out and lost, it does not mean that the book can be copied.

    Jones has been proven correct in his assumptions that some WMOs will not give him the right to release data. Some have said “no”. if they then change their mind and say jones can relese whatever he had provided he acknowledges that the data is modified after he has made his statement he cannot be blamed for his assumption release was forbidden.

  168. Harry Lu @ 8:54:34

    Read up a little more on this, like at Bishop Hill and ClimateAudit. Jones and Acton have muddied the water perhaps just enough to escape but the polluted waters are very apparent to all of the world’s climate services, as AJStrata has so perspicaciously noted.

    Transparency, replicability. These are like water to the Wicked Warlocks of East Anglia. It’s melting them.
    ==============

  169. kim (07:47:05) :
    Leif, play the ball, not the man.

    You got to tackle the man to get the ball, but I don’t know which man you talking about.

    kwik (07:47:11) :
    I wonder where you get this from too? It is my impression that SI is a group of volounteers, just like us, trying to fight the warmista’s ? Just like many here do.

    I gave a link. I don’t go by ‘impressions’. Here is another link:

    http://www.ubuntu.upc.edu/civil_society/actors/8/eng

    Maybe there are many Stockholm Initiatives floating around out there so you can pick the one that is most palatable :-)

  170. Harry Lu (08:54:34),

    You’re re-framing what Willis said, which was that if no restriction on sharing the data exists, it can be assumed that the data is public.

    I would like to see all agreements posted on-line that CRU entered into with each separate government, with dates and signatures. Because that is what Jones is now claiming: that there were specific agreements – not general boilerplate restrictions.

  171. The S.I. press release is a dishonest smear job. It is headlined “Climate scientist delivers false statement in parliament enquiry.” People can read Jones’ testimony in different ways and are free to agree or disagree that CRU has done its best in recent months to make data available. But to spread this sort of inflammatory “press release” is base. By all means debate how best to make complex data sets publicly available, but leave off the character assassinations.

  172. Mike @ 9:22:53

    It’s obfuscation by UEA. They can’t make the data public; it’s gone. And now they are trying to blame others for their deficiencies. Nobody is assassinating their characters except themselves. Oh, what tangled webs they’ve woven.
    =======================

  173. Leif @ 9:14:24 I was referring to your reference to an ‘advocacy’ group. It’s ‘what do they say’, not ‘who said it’.
    ================

  174. I’ve little doubt Jones and Acton will skate on this little trick. But they’ve lost the faith of the world’s climate services.

    For what, I ask?
    ========

  175. Leif Svalgaard (09:14:24) :

    “Maybe there are many Stockholm Initiatives floating around out there so you can pick the one that is most palatable :-)”

    I think that is exactly what you have done, Leif. In a very arrogant way, if I may say so.

    Here you have the SI;

    http://www.stockholminitiative.com/eng/about-us/who-we-are/

    And the impression I had, was from correspondence over time, not just a random link on the Internett.

  176. OK you lucky people
    Here are a couple of plots showing what the swedish met office is offering.
    The top plot shows a spageti plot of most stations with 1961 to 2008 data intact.
    The second averages these all togeter
    Note that Upsaala was experiencing warmth during the LIA unlike the rest of Europ. (or perhaps measurement problems?

    Note that the slop of the data for the bulk of the stations 1961 to end is 4.4degC per decade.

    This data is all from SMHI page

    http://www.smhi.se/klimatdata/meteorologi/dataserier-for-observationsstationer-1961-2008-1.7375

    Google translate works wonders.

  177. Smokey: “Instead of complying, Jones and his cohorts stonewalled at every opportunity.”

    That’s obvious from the emails, and the behaviour was unprofessional and high-handed. However, if you want just desserts, I think Jones has suffered plenty in the past few months in terms of reputation.

    “Now they’re playing word games to try and explain why they refused to cooperate with requests for data – data that they provided to their pals, but not to other scientists:”

    Perhaps. But technically they are correct. The communications from SMHI confirm the previous understanding of an agreement that CRU would not release the original data.

    The way I see it, very bad blood developed between the parties for a number of reasons, leading to Jones’s stonewalling. That’s not very creditable, but not criminal, and I think understandable in view of the various charges being made against climate scientists, although I’m probably biased in their favour.

    What should happen now is that the scientific societies should produce a set of protocols on data sharing, so that from now on everyone can know the score.

  178. kim (09:41:02) :
    Leif @ 9:14:24 I was referring to your reference to an ‘advocacy’ group. It’s ‘what do they say’, not ‘who said it’.
    I think they consider themselves an advocacy group, and what is wrong with advocacy groups [as long you know they are that]? Washington DC is crawling with them. Here is more on international/transnational advocacy groups: http://law.ubalt.edu/downloads/law_downloads/ILT_01_2_1995.pdf
    I do not consider it an attack to mention what things are about. Amnesty International is an advocacy group, for example. What is wrong with that?

  179. Harry Lu (08:54:34) : edit

    “Willis Eschenbach (22:38:16) :
    The existence of agreements saying you can’t redistribute the data clearly means that without such an agreement you can redistribute the data …”

    Willis this is wrong! If the copyrighted info page ina book gets torn out and lost, it does not mean that the book can be copied.

    Harry, you’re not following the bouncing ball. Plain vanilla datasets cannot be copyrighted, they can only be covered by explicit agreements. In the absence of such an agreement, all bets are off.

    w.

  180. “Willis Eschenbach (10:21:40) :
    Harry, you’re not following the bouncing ball. Plain vanilla datasets cannot be copyrighted, they can only be covered by explicit agreements. In the absence of such an agreement, all bets are off.”

    1. Willis read the WMOs web pages – most say that the data cannot be redistributed -this is quite explicit I think ie. I can not provide the data on my page as that is redistribution. I can provide a link or tell you where to get the data. This is just what CRU did. The bulk 98% is the same as CRU. The other can be purchased from the WMOs. (at least that was possible after they published there station list!)

    2. Data does not have to be explicitly copyrighted. If it is on a web page it does not mean that you can copy it. eg the problems wiki has with copied text from another page – you cannot do it

    /harry

  181. kwik (09:52:33) :
    And the impression I had, was from correspondence over time, not just a random link on the Internet.
    It is strange, that they do not mention when they were founded with a disclaimer that they should not be confused with that ‘other’ Stockholm Initiative. I have been following their website for a while and they have been busy removing earlier petitions…

    correspondence over time
    How long have you corresponded with them?

  182. In the December 21 letter SMHI denied CRU to publish their homogenized data as SMHI’s raw data.

    The Swedish license agreement is here:

    http://data.smhi.se/met/climate/time_series/html/essential20.html

    The terms of use of SMHI data state:

    3.2 The Licensee owns no right to use the data or products provided under this agreement for commercial purposes and not for development or production of meteorological, hydrological and oceanographic value added-value services. The licensee does not own nor authorized to redistribute, sell, assign or otherwise transfer data products or documentation without further processing to third parties unless the parties have received written permission from SMHI.

    The clause “without further processing” should be interpreted as that if further processed you are free to do your thing! Perhaps that clause is oddly enough placed for Dr Jones to miss its meaning.

  183. I know I’m a bit late into this but surely if you have a request for release of information; that you are not allowed to release ; you refer the requestor ONTO THE SOURCE direct.

    Thus CRU should have had a standard (FOIA friendly) response written :

    1) Original data by x;y;z can be found at CRU here ……
    2) We are not allowed to release data from a; b; c … however you can contact the relevant gatekeepers here (freda@a.ac, bjorn@b.ac etc).
    3) the following are commercial organisations and will only release their data for a fee – contact them at…

    Anything less must be seen as INTENTIONAL attempts to hide the source material.

    The stonewalling is patently a deliberate device to avoid proper scrutiny. It is apparent that not only the scientists at CRU who played these games; but also the administration officers at CRU are all guilty of a criminal conspiracy to subvert the (UK) law.

    And if they have lost the original data then how come anyone is paying them or listening to them ?

  184. Excerpts from the letters:

    Phil Jones: We stress that the data we hold has arisen from multiple sources, and has been recovered over the last 30 years. Subsequent quality control and homogenisation of these data have been carried out. It is therefore highly likely that the version we hold and are requesting permission to distribute will differ from your own current holdings.

    SMHI: It has never been our intention to withhold any data but we feel that it is paramount that data that has undergone, for instance, homogenisation by anyone other than SMHI is not presented as SMHI data.

    TRANSLATION:

    Jones: “Hi, can I have permission to distribute your data that I’ve rewritten?”

    SMHI: “Rewritten? No, but you can distribute our original data, OR…you can distribute your own rewritten data, so long as you state this fact, and don’t claim that it is ours.”

    Jones: “Oh. OK then. Thank you.”

    Jones to panel: “They said no.”

  185. kwik, kim:
    The Stockholm Initiative is a political advocacy group.
    Their Swedish website lists “Stockholmsinitiativets politiska målsättningar” or “S.I’s political goals”.
    Whatever their guise, this is politics, not science.

  186. Stockholm Initiative: they seem opposed to biofuels:

    http://www.righttofood.org/new/PDF/CHR2008.pdf

    I grant them that biofuels may not be a good idea, but I fail to see what that has to do with the science of climate change, but can see how it is part of the politics of climate change. So, I think my analysis stands: that S.I. is a political advocacy organization. Whether or not they are a remnant of the old ISSA initiative may be difficult to gauge [and I could be wrong], but the “Stockholm Initiative” name cannot have been unknown to the founders of the “new” S.I. in Sweden. At any rate, this is politics, not science.

  187. Leif @ 11:06:33

    Is it possible for you to pay attention to what was said rather than who said it?
    =================

  188. Brendan H 10:11:26

    It’s pretty clear that the refusal of the FOI requests was criminal. It’s not being prosecuted because of a very short statute of limitations. That briefness may get changed, particularly as a result of the fiasco.
    ================

  189. Leif Svalgaard (10:37:43) :

    “How long have you corresponded with them?”

    Not sure. For several months.

    One way correspondence; I receive “climate” mails. Why?

    In Norway you can download data from the web.
    I have tried it. But I never tried to ask how raw it is.

    The SMHI web-page is in english(upper right corner).

    But when looking for data, I ended up here;

    http://www.smhi.se/en/services/professional-services/data-and-statistics/temperature-1.7651

    So my impression is, from here you need to move over to mailing them for data? That is disappointing.

  190. kim (11:26:03) :
    Is it possible for you to pay attention to what was said rather than who said it?
    I think both have to be taken into account, especially when it comes to ‘why’ something was said. And ‘what’ was said was not accurate: “All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain”.
    Public domain means: “The public domain is an intellectual property designation for the range of content that is not owned or controlled by anyone. These materials are public property, and available for anyone to use freely for any purpose” This does not describe the SMHI data which comes with licenses attached restricting certain use.
    So, yes, I do pay attention. Perhaps the above escaped your attention?

  191. The only question, Leif, is whether what they said is true or not. You may doubt its truth because you think they cannot say the truth because they are an ‘advocacy’ organization, but you haven’t proved anything with your doubt.

    So pay attention to the textual evidence. Evidence. Good stuff, that.
    =============

  192. Leif Svalgaard (11:06:33) :

    “…The Stockholm Initiative is a political advocacy group.
    Their Swedish website lists “Stockholmsinitiativets politiska målsättningar” or “S.I’s political goals”…..”

    The AGW’ers made it political when they invented the Carbon Tax.

  193. WOW! I missed this one. Ouch. I wonder how many more lies Jones told the Board of Inquiry about NDAs.

  194. Steven Douglas @ 10:59:50

    Nice translation. Like I said, Acton and Jones will probably skate, but only through destroying the faith others have had in them. And if Parliament weren’t so distracted, one or more of those panel members might like to re-visit the question.
    ==================

  195. Harry Lu (10:31:15)

    “Willis Eschenbach (10:21:40) :
    Harry, you’re not following the bouncing ball. Plain vanilla datasets cannot be copyrighted, they can only be covered by explicit agreements. In the absence of such an agreement, all bets are off.”


    2. Data does not have to be explicitly copyrighted. If it is on a web page it does not mean that you can copy it. eg the problems wiki has with copied text from another page – you cannot do it.

    You are conflating data with text. Text can be copyrighted. Plain data (i.e. the white pages in a phone book) cannot be copyrighted. So your claim that “Data does not have to be explicitly copyrighted” is meaningless.

    Why? Because data cannot be explicitly copyrighted. As I explained, along with the legal reference, above. That’s why I said you were not following the bouncing ball. Here’s what I wrote:

    Because in general, scientific data are not covered by copyright. I find:

    In Feist, the Supreme Court rejected the “sweat of the brow” doctrine that provided copyright protection for databases and compilation based upon the effort use to created the compilation. Instead, the court decided that compilations and databases are protected by copyright only when they are arranged and selected in an original manner. Although the level of originality needed is not very high, the white pages of a phone books are not protectable because the selection of the data (all customers in a geographic area) and the arrangement of the data (in alphabetical order) were not sufficiently original as to come under the protection of the Copyright Act.

    I hope that’s clear.

  196. Look, Leif, this ‘advocacy’ organization has exposed the sophistry Jones and Acton used to mislead Parliament. You should worry about the sophistry and the deception, not who exposed it.
    ==============

  197. kim (11:37:03) :
    The only question, Leif, is whether what they said is true or not. […] So pay attention to the textual evidence. Evidence. Good stuff, that.

    The textual evidence is:
    “All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain”.

    but
    Public domain means: “The public domain is an intellectual property designation for the range of content that is not owned or controlled by anyone. These materials are public property, and available for anyone to use freely for any purpose

    This does not describe the SMHI data which comes with licenses attached restricting certain use.

    So, what they said was not true on its face.

  198. Leif, see Steven Douglas @ 10:59:50

    I think the sophistry of Jones and Acton has fooled you as well as Parliament.
    ==============

  199. kwik (11:37:31) :
    The AGW’ers made it political when they invented the Carbon Tax.
    I think the politicians invented the Carbon Tax, but just because others are bad does not justify skeptics being bad too, IMHO. Perhaps you are another opinion.

  200. It was a trick, Leif, and right in character with the Phil Jones of the emails. It’s not ‘hiding the decline’ it is ‘hiding the truth’.

    And for what, I ask? Temporary respite?
    =================

  201. We’re probably not going to agree on this, Leif. But you can trust Jones if you like. I’m not going to trust him ever again, and that goes for a lot of other people, too.

    Heh, perhaps Acton among them. How can he like what he’s forced to do?
    ===================

  202. All-in, this nest of bumblers at CRU and it’s deposed leader should be disbanded. They serve no further purpose with this level of compromise infecting the organization. If UEA wants to be in the climate business, they need to start all over again -from scratch.

  203. Leif, please take a look at lucia’s comment #36770 @ 11:21 AM on 3/7/10 at the Blackboard. I think she explicates Jones’ trick as well as anyone I’ve seen.
    ==================

  204. Uh, re my 12:50:04. lucia’s comment at the Blackboard is in the Spherical Cow thread, the tail end of which has turned into a nice discussion of this controversy. I’d recommend it to all. Also, Bishop Hill and Climate Audit each have strings of informative comments with many telling points.
    ===================

  205. kim (11:55:13) :
    I think the sophistry of Jones and Acton has fooled you as well as Parliament.<
    I was only talking about S.I.:

    The textual evidence is:
    “All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain”.

    but
    Public domain means: “The public domain is an intellectual property designation for the range of content that is not owned or controlled by anyone. These materials are public property, and available for anyone to use freely for any purpose”

    This does not describe the SMHI data which comes with licenses attached restricting certain use.

    So, what they said was not true on its face.

  206. Leif @ 11:52:25

    In the third page of comments at Bishop Hill, you can read the agreement in the original Swedish, which is apparently less ambiguous than the English translation.
    ==============

  207. kim (12:50:04) :
    she explicates Jones’ trick as well as anyone I’ve seen.
    I never said anything about Jones et al. only that:
    1) S.I. is a political organization by their own statement
    2) that S.I. was not truthful when they said that the SMHI data was in the public domain.
    So stick to that. All your arrows are aimed elsewhere.

  208. Leif Svalgaard (07:30:19) :

    “http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119035028/abstract

    At a meeting of the ISSA Bureau in Stockholm in 1996, the International Social Security Association under the author’s presidency launched what became known as the Stockholm Initiative…”

    It should be obvious to anyone that they are not the same group. (By the way, the Swedish climate group is really called “Stockholmsinitiativet”. “Stockholm Initiative” is just a translation of their name into English.)

    Leif Svalgaard (11:22:21) :

    “Whether or not they are a remnant of the old ISSA initiative may be difficult to gauge [and I could be wrong], but the “Stockholm Initiative” name cannot have been unknown to the founders of the “new” S.I. in Sweden.”

    Why could the name of a working group of a Swiss labour organization not be unknown to a couple of physicists and chemists in Sweden? You are just trying to rationalize your earlier posts, aren’t you?

  209. Leif @ 13:20:56

    No, I’m talking about the trick Jones and Acton pulled on the Parliamentary Committee. I’m not sure you are up to speed on that one yet. Follow my leads to Bishop Hill, Climate Audit, and the Blackboard.
    ==============

  210. Leif @ 13:25:21

    For the purposes of Jones, the information was in the public domain, which is what they tried to deny to Parliament. Go read it.
    ========================

  211. And you should read what lucia has to say rather than sticking to your point. I hope you’ll be able to understand.
    ===============

  212. Leif Svalgaard (13:25:21) :

    “1) S.I. is a political organization by their own statement…”

    What I see here is that you attack the messenger, and try to discredit them, instead of discussing the message.

    There are groups of volounteers in many countries. Groups of angry citizens and scientists. They try to fight the Carbon agenda.

    You attack them, instead of discussing the message.

    And yet, its ordinary people without the funds of the UN, the Governments, and so on.

    In addition you are wrong, trying to tie these volounteers to “Big Something”.

    Now, whether SI is correct in their message, thats very difficult for me to see at the moment. I’m confused on who said what and what was allowed, where.

    No wonder one gets confused.

  213. Leif Svalgaard (22:03:46) “If I say the weather tomorrow will be like today, I also get a 85% success rate [depending a bit on location].”

    SWT (solar weather technique) goes beyond the transient solutions (to differential equations operating on total weather state) of SM (standard meteorology). Corbyn is forecasting extreme weather (NOT ALL WEATHER) 30 to 100 days ahead (& in some cases up to a year ahead). Standard meteorology can only do 5 to 10 days with transient-solutions-only. Under SOME circumstances where SM would say A or B or C, SWT can narrow that down.

    Leif Svalgaard (22:03:46) “Perhaps, you can point me to a relevant citation.”

    The material is not nicely gathered all-in-one-place, but as a starting point: weatheraction.com . There has been independent verification and I have seen enough correct forecasts, including ones I’ve experienced first-hand, to start trying to take a closer look at what these folks are doing with the limited info that has reached the net. I only started paying attention not-too-long ago, so I cannot comment on how the success rate varies with cycle phases (and based on what Corbyn says about what he calls “connection strength” the current phase vector is amenable to good forecasting, whereas I get the impression other states: not so much).

    I would prefer the science without the politics, but that’s wishful thinking given that the AGW movement is destroying the credibility of centre politics & and the environmental movement (…& climate science, but I’m not worried about their well-being since they’re sitting on piles of grant money with secure jobs that pay far more than enough even if the grant money diminishes).

  214. Harry Lu (08:44:35) “If corbyn has found the holy grail to climate, then with vast fortunes resting on AGW or noAGW shouldnt he be forced to reveal his methods (with suitable payments perhaps)”

    Given the complexity of nature, I wouldn’t call it holy grail (remember, he is long-range-forecasting extreme events at this stage), but it could be a valuable clue to other researchers working on other problems. For example, it took only a day for me to find this after spending a few days reviewing Corbyn’s materials:

    Vaughan, P.L. (2010). Volcanic Activity, the Sun, the Moon, & the Stratosphere.

    http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/VolcanoStratosphereSLAM.htm

    That’s only a few days old and already it needs updating (following another insight).

    As for forcing release of information, that’s tricky business, particularly from a legal perspective I suspect, but I find it informative (about public perception & mood) to see your suggestion. None of us wants to see needless death like what recently happened in the UK when the Met Office ignored Corbyn’s forceful warnings …and now we see in the news that the Met Office has suspended their failed seasonal forecasting. Corbyn made his forecasts available publicly to save lives. He was ignored. He has offered to fill the void left by the Met Office, but key players seem intent on remaining political.

  215. http://ahds.ac.uk/copyrightfaq.htm#faq4

    Are database structures and their contents protected by copyright law?
    Answer
    Yes. The “Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997″ (SI 3032) came into place on 1 January 1998, which introduced a ‘Database Right’ and copyright for databases. A database is defined as:

    “a collection of independent works, data or other materials which
    (a) are arranged in a systematic or methodical way, or
    (b) are individually accessible by electronic or other means.”

    To gain copyright, a database must show sufficient intellectual creativity or selection in its creation. Each individual item included in the database may or may not be in copyright. Irrespective of whether the database is entitled to full copyright protection then it is given a Database Right. This lasts for 15 years but can last in perpetuity as the 15 year period of protection rolls forward if changes and updates or other sufficient investments are made to it in this period.

    The final para seems to suggest that selection of data is important . ie creation from sights gathering data at cost to the MO must fall under this.

    HOWEVER:
    this is from the DMHI data page

    L I C E N S A V T A L

    on meteorological, hydrological and oceanographic data and / or products
    for non-commercial agency activities, non-commercial research and education
    or non-commercial private purposes.

    1. License

    1.1 SMHI announces in accordance with this Agreement, a nonexclusive right to use data and / or products published on SMHI’s domain, data.smhi.se.

    1.2 Data and / or products provided under this Agreement may only
    used for non-commercial research and educational activities, non-commercial
    private purposes or non-commercial agency activities.

    2nd Intellectual property rights

    2.1 SMHI holds all intellectual property rights associated with the data or
    products covered by this Agreement, either for its own account or, where appropriate, the earlier owner’s behalf.

    2.2 Use of data in accordance with this Agreement shall, as appropriate, include
    reference to SMHI as rights holders or equivalent.

    3rd Access rights

    3.1 Data and / or products obtained in accordance with this Agreement may only be used in non-commercial or noncommercial personal purposes.

    3.2 The Licensee owns no right to use the data or products provided under this agreement for commercial purposes and not for development or production of meteorological, hydrological and oceanographic value added-value services. The licensee does not own nor authorized to redistribute, sell, assign or otherwise transfer data products or documentation without further processing to third parties unless the parties have received written permission from SMHI.

    7th Termination, the effect of breach of contract, etc.

    7.1 If Licensee not complying with its obligations under this Agreement and not
    to correction within 60 days after written observation with reference to this point, SMHI owns the right to terminate with immediate effect.

    7.2 In the event Licensee violates Section 3.1 or 3.2, above, or develop applications for a commercial purpose or value added-value services, he shall, within 30 days after written demand to pay an amount equal to the value of the data used the data to SMHI. Data value is determined according Ecomet rules for pricing. In addition, SMHI receive a free non-exclusive license to develop application or value added-value services with the right to use in commercial activities. This will not affect SMHI’s right to act by reason of breach of contract under paragraph 7.1 above.

    3.2 is explicit in this
    “The licensee does not own nor authorized to redistribute”

    The CRU may use, use in a non commercial product which can be distributed, but it CANNOT in no way, no how, be redistributed!

    You contest this statement from their websight????!!!!!!

  216. Someone just leaked a new batch of emails from the same crew who were exposed in the original Climategate emails: click

    Except for Phil Jones, of course; he’s out of a job, in the news, and radioactive toxic waste. But most of the rest of them are there, scheming on our tax money.

    I wonder who leaked this batch?

  217. Smokey (14:48:09) :

    Someone just leaked a new batch of emails from the same crew who were exposed in the original Climategate emails: click

    No, this is a different bunch, all in the US (I think). This is 17 pages of discussion about the proposed NYT ad and alternatives to it. A couple of them favor the alternative of a supportive summary statement from the NAS.

    (Keep digging your grave, establishment science!)

  218. kwik (14:03:30) :
    “1) S.I. is a political organization by their own statement…”
    What I see here is that you attack the messenger, and try to discredit them, instead of discussing the message.

    I just point out that their goal is political, not scientific. I don’t think that is an attack, to call things by their right name.
    And their message “All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain” was false. I don’t buy that it could be interpreted differently, or that ‘for this or that purpose’ it means something else, etc. But, perhaps I’m to old-fashioned about this; maybe you think that Schneider was right: “it OK to lie a bit to get your message across”.

  219. Harry Lu (14:35:27)

    http://ahds.ac.uk/copyrightfaq.htm#faq4
    Are database structures and their contents protected by copyright law?
    Answer
    Yes.

    The “Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997″ (SI 3032) came into place on 1 January 1998, which introduced a ‘Database Right’ and copyright for databases. A database is defined as:

    “a collection of independent works, data or other materials which
    (a) are arranged in a systematic or methodical way, or
    (b) are individually accessible by electronic or other means.”
    To gain copyright, a database must show sufficient intellectual creativity or selection in its creation.

    That’s exactly what I said. A plain vanilla database can’t be copyrighted. The courts have ruled that the phone book white pages can’t be copyrighted. The court explicitly said it’s not whether they’ve put time or money into the project. The issue is whether the design of the database is new or innovative.

    There is nothing original about a table with rows for individual records and columns for record fields. Therefore a block of temperature data can’t be copyrighted.

  220. Paul Vaughan (14:04:22) :
    Corbyn is forecasting extreme weather (NOT ALL WEATHER) 30 to 100 days ahead (& in some cases up to a year ahead).
    Extreme weather is even more difficult to forecast, and is very unevenly distributed and local, and is therefore, a priori, less influenced by his SLAM [which is a global measure]. That he has his own pissing contest with the Met Office is a different matter. His ‘success rate’ is only what he says it is. If his forecasts saves lives, then he is immoral to withhold his method, so that lives will be lost in India, China, South America, everywhere not covered by his forecasts.

  221. Leif, I believe you are willfully not getting the point. Old-fashionedness has nothing to do with it. Jones did not need their permission and he lied that he did.
    ===============

  222. Leif Svalgaard (18:13:11) : And their message “All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain” was false.”

    Two issues, entirely separate from one another, to wit:

    SMHI denied Jones permission to do one thing only, and that was to sign SMHI’s name to CRU’s “quality controlled and homogenised” data, or distribute them in any way that would imply that SMHI was the source. They did, however, make provision for distribution of those same data when they said:

    “We see no problem with publication of the data set together with a reference stating that the data included in the dataset is based on observations made by SMHI but it has undergone processing made by your research unit.”

    In other words, once you change the data, they are YOUR data. Take responsibility for them and SIGN YOUR OWN NAME TO IT.

    Then comes your (entirely separate) issue, as SMHI went on to state: “We would also prefer a link to SMHI or to our web site where the original data can be obtained.”

    Whether or not that second statement was correct is absolutely irrelevant to, and would not alter the facts surrounding, the first statement, which establishes that Jones was in fact NOT denied permission to release the “SMHI inspired/CRU contaminated” data, but only the ability to sign SMHI’s name to them.

  223. Incidentally, the real question begged (but not asked, neither here nor in Parliament) was, why did Jones, whose office has admitted responsibility for the loss of the raw data in the first place, not submit requests to all concerned for the lost data? I should think they could go a long way toward reconstructions, and even “showing his homework”. All he really did, with every single one of his requests, was to ask for the authority to claim “other” authorship for “his” substantially rewritten works.

  224. kim (19:42:08) :
    Jones did not need their permission and he lied that he did.

    Steven Douglas (20:34:43) :
    Two issues, entirely separate from one another, to wit:

    Both, I don’t care what Jones did, etc.
    My point was that the S.I. statement was untrue, and that I distrust organizations that are politically goal-oriented, even if they [in this instance by unmasking Jones] did some good.

  225. OK, Leif, I’m happy. You get the point, and I get yours. Thank you for the discussion.
    ===========

  226. Leif Svalgaard (21:17:15) :
    “…I distrust organizations that are politically goal-oriented…”

    Likewise here. Could not agree more, and regardless of the seeming importance, nobility or loftiness of their stated goals.

  227. Re: Leif Svalgaard (18:52:07)

    We don’t know the details of Corbyn’s SLAM because he has released specific info about only broadly general features. In the videos he describes sometimes-predictable external factors (which are often associated with changes in the jet stream) that are not taken into account by standard meteorology.

    As for morality, it has no effect on truth, so why wait for Corbyn to release info? Wheel reinvention capability is an insurance policy for civilization.

  228. Paul Vaughan (01:46:15) :
    We don’t know the details of Corbyn’s SLAM because he has released specific info about only broadly general features
    If he keeps it to himself, then it has no interest [for me at least].

  229. Re: Leif Svalgaard (04:30:48)

    He has provided some info. I’ve listed some links to introductory material at Paul Vaughan (16:31:52) here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/27/archibald-on-stellar-to-climate-linkage/

    I fully understand anyone’s irritation with the lack of willingness to make knowledge fully public, but irritation might be less helpful to civilization than attempted wheel reinvention (i.e. wherever there is substance – and let’s be clear that Corbyn is not claiming to be able to forecast all extreme weather, nor is he claiming to deeply understand the physics where the lookback method generates 85% odds).

  230. Leif Svalgaard (10:25:34) “Not good enough.”

    I don’t see any indication that Corbyn feels threatened by pressure to release info. Amount of info released has no impact on truth. And on the political side of the equation, timed-release of scientific info is likely perceived as extremely valuable in encouraging retreat of the AGW assault on civilization (including its assault on the credibility of centre politics and the more misguided element of the environmental movement, which mistakenly equates climate alarmism with environmentalism). In short: It will likely be more efficient to reinvent whatever aspect of the wheel is credible.

  231. Paul Vaughan (15:25:55) :
    I don’t see any indication that Corbyn feels threatened by pressure to release info.
    I don’t think anybody cares. It is up to him to do what is needed to be taken seriously. If he doesn’t, he won’t be. Simple as that.

  232. Re: Leif Svalgaard (15:36:52)

    If Corbyn does as you advocate, he’ll be “tied up at committee” without enough time to complete his important work. It is a balancing act.

  233. Paul Vaughan (19:56:50) :
    If Corbyn does as you advocate, he’ll be “tied up at committee” without enough time to complete his important work. It is a balancing act.
    No, that is what every working scientist is doing every day. Your important work is not done or finished until published. The act of publication and peer-review is where your work comes into focus, because you are forced to make it understandable to others and in the process it comes understandable to yourself]. You seem to have boundless admiration for his ‘important’ work sight unseen. I suggest it is not important at all and that is the reason for not releasing it.

  234. Re: Leif Svalgaard (20:49:44)

    What I have admiration for is rejection of the defeatist “can’t do” attitude towards figuring out climate. And the truth is not affected by whether people follow formal administrative procedure. As for “sight unseen”, this is simply not true, but don’t misunderstand that I buy everything – I’m interested in the truth about nature and anything that stimulates its elicitation. If someone else has a better way, bring it on.

  235. Magick is magick as practised by Wizards in pointy hats and its arcane secrets are not to be vouchsafed to the rest of us.

    I have no more patience with Piers Corbyn who has been saying he has the answers but will not tell us for the last twenty years what they actually are, if they exist, than with Phil Jones [no relation] whose excuse seems to have been either nobody asked, the dog ate my homework or some such.

    It’s not Natural Philosophy, it is the province of the charlatan and mountebank, the Uri Gellers. the mystics and the magicians.

    Once they used mystical or religious beliefs now they cloak themselves in the language of science. And many people believe them as they always did and probably always will.

    Whilst happily using the wonderful developments of science’s handmaiden technology.

    Unlike illusionists who who are sceptics to a man or woman. After all did not Maskelyne, the man who hid the Suez Canal from the Germans in WW2, say afterwards it was rather a big job? Seems to have worked though.

    And as a Natural Philosopher and illusionist I have no truck with any of this.

    Kindest Regards.

  236. No not Voodoo, fairly accurate measurement within limits. But it is only chaotic variation in the climate system and only a fool would look for any meaning in it.

    Kindest Regards

  237. a jones (22:10:23) “only chaotic variation in the climate system”

    Ok I see – you are an AGWer.

  238. Paul Vaughan (21:18:54) :
    What I have admiration for is rejection of the defeatist “can’t do” attitude towards figuring out climate.
    Then you should admire the current crop of climate ‘scientists’ that have it all figured out and who predict climate 100 years hence. For me, Corbyn’s stuff is just ordinary snake oil. He [or you] is welcome to prove me wrong.

  239. I did follow Corbyns predictions on bad wheather in Copenhagen. He missed by 3 days, and I truly did enjoy it when Obama left in a hurry.

    It was also quite enjoyable when that british journalist almost froze his feet off.

    But I seem to remember he also predicted some floods and stuff for the mediterean area, and as far as I can see, that didnt happen?

    Its easy to notice the hits, and forget the misses.

    He did give a notice to tell his secrets on….18’th of October 2009, was it? What one is missing is a written paper on it, not just some talk and scribbling on a blackboard in front of an audience.

  240. Leif Svalgaard (03:36:21) “He [or you] is welcome to prove me wrong.”

    Corbyn appears too clever & seasoned to fall for such bait. As for my attention, it has shifted elsewhere for now – for example, note that solar factors play only a minor &/or occasional role in Corbyn’s successful forecasts (if you take a careful look…)


    Re: kwik (08:19:36)

    It’s all relative. Being out by 3 days from 100 days ahead compared to standard meteorology (SM) not having a clue from 100 days ahead. Is SM sometimes out by 7 hours with their 10 day forecast? Does SM ever get 5 day forecasts wrong? Be sure to apply the same standards. Maybe the choice is, “Which is less worse?” – as in choosing political parties.


    If someone has a better way, bring it on. (Mainstream computer fantasies based on untenable assumptions need not apply.)

  241. I meant to say being 3 days late was quite good. For a couple of days I was afraid the blizzards would miss Copenhagen….but it didnt!

    It was a joyful moment seeing the queues thinning out til in the end being noone there.

    hehe.

  242. Paul Vaughan (12:10:41) :
    Corbyn appears too clever & seasoned to fall for such bait.
    Snake oils salesmen usually are clever, and usually cleverer than the poor folks [and admirers] that fall for their con.

  243. Leif Svalgaard (12:42:58) “Snake oils salesmen usually are clever, and usually cleverer than the poor folks [and admirers] that fall for their con.”

    I’m not sure if you are getting the point I’m trying to make: What if there is some valuable substance mixed in with snake oil and it is dismissed due to its camouflaged context? Some operators are very sophisticated. I have no interest in buying salesmens’ products undistilled.

    One of my interests is identification of confounding. It is necessary to map out confounding in order to understand why different people suspect different things about climate complexity. Reaching a consensus (however many decades from now) will require some mediating players who understand how & why misunderstandings have & are arising.

    Reminder:
    I have retracted the word “explains”.

    Update:
    I have found a potential alternative explanation that appears to possibly have more merit (…but that does not mean I am dismissing everything Corbyn has to say).

    The ultimate snake oil salespeople:
    Those pushing computer fantasies based on untenable assumptions.

  244. Paul Vaughan (15:36:59) :
    I’m not sure if you are getting the point I’m trying to make: What if there is some valuable substance mixed in with snake oil and it is dismissed due to its camouflaged context? Some operators are very sophisticated. I have no interest in buying salesmens’ products undistilled.
    Corbyn is indeed a very sophisticated snake oil salesman. That is why you fell for it. And the ‘what if’ is not science. You see, a snake oil salesman knows he is selling just snake oil.

    One of my interests is identification of confounding.
    Try some physics instead. Statistics does not lead to understanding of anything.

    require some mediating players who understand how & why misunderstandings have & are arising.
    We do not deal with misunderstandings in science, but with correct or not. Misunderstanding is no excuse.

  245. The misunderstanding is that I have fallen for something – (and it is not mine).

    Leif Svalgaard (16:06:52) “Try some physics instead. Statistics does not lead to understanding of anything.”

    And the career academic statisticians I’ve dealt with see it differently, as do the geographers, & the chemists, etc. …but there are not enough living days to be everything.

  246. Paul Vaughan (18:09:44) :
    And the career academic statisticians I’ve dealt with see it differently, as do the geographers, & the chemists, etc. …but there are not enough living days to be everything.

    Statistics is very good for description of something [e.g. geography], but not for understanding something.

  247. Each discipline makes its contribution. I acknowledge all.

    On a more practical & constructive note, can you point me to precise (perhaps average) definitions of the periods of the lunar nodal & apsidal cycles? …and is that what people call that: “lunar apsidal cycle”? or is “lunar perigee cycle” better? I’m not clear on when to use “apside” vs. “apsides” – maybe you can point to a page that supplies rich term-usage context? Based on the envelope calculations I’ve done with the numbers I have, the fit is much better than what SLAM gives, but I’ve run into some suggestions to use 18.5996 and others to use 18.6134 (& 8.85, but that looks rounded off).

  248. Paul Vaughan (19:10:43) :
    can you point me to precise (perhaps average) definitions of the periods of the lunar nodal & apsidal cycles? …

    The lunar nodes are the points where the orbit of the Moon crosses the Ecliptic [which is the path of the Sun across the sky]. The lunar nodal cycle [NC] is the time between when the moon is again at the same position on the ecliptic, 18.612948 years. The perigee is the point of closest approach, the apogee of farthest. The line joining these two points is called the line of Apsides, it moves in the plane of the moon’s orbit to the East, making one complete revolution [the lunar apse cycle, AC] in 8.847358 years.
    Now these values are not fixed, but changes over time. This can be a problem for people looking for cycles as these are not true cycles. The values I gave are for today. Here are the values for several epochs:
    1800 AD NC=18.612864 AC=8.847264
    1850 AD NC=18.612884 AC=8.847286
    1900 AD NC=18.612904 AC=8.847309
    1950 AD NC=18.612924 AC=8.847331
    2000 AD NC=18.612944 AC=8.847354
    2050 AD NC=18.612964 AC=8.847376
    etc
    There are formulae for calculating these quantities [Nautical Almanac, 1974]. They are cumbersome. Let D be the time in Julian Centuries of 3652500 days counted from noon January 1st, 1900, then NC = -360 / (-0.0529539222 + 0.0001557*2/10000*D + 0.000000046*3/10000*D^2)/365.25 years and
    AC = 360 / (0.1114040803 – 0.0007739*2/10000*D – 0.00000026*3/10000*D^2) / 365.25 years.

    You may find some pages on the internet, e.g. by searching for the constants e.g. 0.0529539222

  249. Leif Svalgaard (20:35:32) :
    Correction:
    There are formulae for calculating these quantities [Nautical Almanac, 1974]. They are cumbersome. Let D be the time in Julian Centuries*100 of 3652500 days, that is 10,000 Julian Years. Astronomy takes the long view. You might also simply interpolate between the epochs I gave.
    Note that the times are MEAN values only. The passages through the nodes can vary by many hours from month to month. The moon’s motion is VERY complicated [but fully understood].

  250. Leif Svalgaard (21:15:53) “The moon’s motion is VERY complicated [but fully understood].”

    And thus very appealing.

    Thanks for the notes. What source should I cite formally for the (‘average’) periods which you have supplied? Nautical Almanac, 1974?

    Also, my guess is that I’ll be able to get numbers of sufficient precision for my purposes from NASA Horizons – does that sound right (assuming I’m not yet looking at high frequencies)?

  251. clarification: By “numbers” I mean state vector (from which other quantities can be derived).

  252. Paul Vaughan (00:48:36) :
    clarification: By “numbers” I mean state vector (from which other quantities can be derived).
    Good luck derived other quantities from the ‘state vector’ :-)
    The vector shows the positions and velocities at a given instant and cannot be used for other instants unless you execute the same numerical integration [as Carsten Arnholm once did].

  253. Re: Leif Svalgaard (07:58:31)

    By “other quantities” I mean radius, force, momentum, rates of change, integrals, etc. – i.e. the state vector can be used to calculate other things. (I’m not sure why you would suggest someone would plan to use instants to “derive” other instants that will be in the Horizons output, but I’ll chalk it up to an “interdisciplinary misunderstanding” and get back to work…)

    Again: Thanks for the notes!

  254. Paul Vaughan (12:15:18) :
    By “other quantities” I mean radius, force, momentum, rates of change, integrals, etc. – i.e. the state vector can be used to calculate other things.
    Some of these ‘other things’ are not constant in time and must be recalculated from the instantaneous state vector.

  255. Re: Leif Svalgaard (14:03:36) “[…] not constant […]”

    Yes, I’ve taken the time to learn how to do basic things like, for example, calculate “osculating” elements.

    One problem I have remaining (when comparing my results to ones on your website & elsewhere) is a tiny positive bias (in estimated instantaneous periods) and my best guess is that this has something to do with definitions of the year. The materials I consulted suggested using the Gaussian year.

    Question: If I calculate 1/(e^SAOT) where SAOT is stratospheric aerosol optical depth, can I call that quantity “stratospheric transparency” without triggering pedantic criticism or is there some other term that is preferred or standard?

  256. Paul Vaughan (16:17:21) :
    The materials I consulted suggested using the Gaussian year.
    People that look for something choose what fits what they are looking for, so you might do that too.

    Question: If I calculate 1/(e^SAOT) where SAOT is stratospheric aerosol optical depth, can I call that quantity “stratospheric transparency” without triggering pedantic criticism or is there some other term that is preferred or standard?
    How about calling it what it is: “stratospheric aerosol attenuation”

  257. Leif Svalgaard (18:38:31) “How about calling it what it is: “stratospheric aerosol attenuation””

    That sounds backwards. I can see how SAOT might be called attenuation, extinction, optical depth, or opacity, but [clarifying here] I’m asking what to call 1/(e^SAOT) [which indicates stratospheric transparency as a proportion].

    One final question: Where might I find the most recent date of the lunar line-of-apsides “maximum” (or whatever that phase should be more-properly called)?

  258. Paul Vaughan (13:44:19) :
    here] I’m asking what to call 1/(e^SAOT) [which indicates stratospheric transparency as a proportion].
    I was confused by the somewhat non-standard way of expression this. The usual way goes like this: I/Io = exp(-tau). I didn’t see that you had taken the minus sign out of the exponential: I/Io = 1/exp(tau). I is the remaining intensity of the incoming beam Io. So, you are talking about remaining after aerosol absorption [check that SAOT is what you think it is]. My real point was to somehow retain the word ‘aerosol’ in your name of the quantity, because there are also other things that absorb light [e.g. ozone]. I don’t know that there is a standard name for your quantity, so just describe it carefully.

    One final question: Where might I find the most recent date of the lunar line-of-apsides “maximum” (or whatever that phase should be more-properly called)?
    I don’t know what you are asking. Do you mean the times of perigee and/or apogee? or given a long time series of the sum of the distances to perigee and apogee, what the maximum sum would be or the time when that was last a maximum? or what?

  259. Leif Svalgaard (14:34:12) “So, you are talking about remaining after aerosol absorption […]”

    Yes.

    Leif Svalgaard (14:34:12) “My real point was to somehow retain the word ‘aerosol’ in your name of the quantity […]”

    Good point. I’ll go with stratospheric aerosol transparency (with an appropriate explanation) until I learn of a more standard term (if one exists).

    Leif Svalgaard (14:34:12) “I don’t know what you are asking.”

    I’m looking for a date (& phase) to anchor the ~8.85 year LAC.

    I’ve started looking at the options Horizons gives for lunar output, but it’s going to take some time to become acquainted with the terminology and reference frames. In the meantime, I can pursue crude pilot calculations in parallel (if I can find a phase & date to anchor LAC — I already have a date for the LNC).

    It may be simplest to skip Horizons output altogether (at this stage) because what I’m planning (in the short-term) doesn’t require the high-frequency (~27-29 day) info — I really only need LNC, LAC, and the anomalistic year (at this stage).


    Separate (but related): I found this while looking for a LAC anchor date:

    Perigaud, C. (2009). ENSO modulations by 14.7 day- and 18.6 yr- lunar cycles.
    abstract:

    http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/documents/OSTST/2009/poster/Perigaudabstract.pdf

    presentation:

    http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/documents/OSTST/2009/poster/Perigaud.pdf

    She is using LNC & the solar cycle.

  260. Paul Vaughan (16:12:24) :
    Good point. I’ll go with stratospheric aerosol transparency (with an appropriate explanation) until I learn of a more standard term (if one exists).
    Still a bit strange. Imagine you have two absorbers: green ones and red ones, then what would be the purpose of talking about the ‘green transparency’? I would think the interesting quantity would be the total transparency. You can maybe defend talking about the ‘aerosol contribution to the non-transparency’. Calling it aerosol transparency suggests that aerosols somehow causes transparency. To get a message across, the choice of words are so important and should be judged not on how correct you think you are, but on the likelihood that your readers will be ‘stupid’, or better in-attentive, enough to misunderstand you.

    I’m looking for a date (& phase) to anchor the ~8.85 year LAC.
    I don’t know what you mean, anchor and phase? do you simply mean when the Moon was at perigee?

  261. What’s the opposite of optical depth & extinction? Would ‘transmittance’ be a better term than transparency? If you have a term that will not meet resistance, I would like to use it. I see that physicists use the quantity I’m talking about, I/Io, so I’m guessing there’s some name for it. [e^(-tau) is equivalent to 1/(e^tau), so I know that’s not the problem.]

    Based on your response about LAC, my guess is there’s no ‘official’ LAC, but rather adjacent LAC series. There’s just one LNC cycle, by contrast. Thus, my guess is that I can arbitrarily lock a ~8.85 year wave to any perigee (and I now have a perigee curve calculated from Horizons output).

    The internet isn’t terribly helpful for learning some branches of specialized terminology.

    Here’s an easier question: Using the LAC & LNC periods you supplied, I’ve worked out what I think is the average period of the extreme proxigean tides: 10.27224978 years. Is this right?

  262. Paul Vaughan (20:58:55) :
    Would ‘transmittance’ be a better term than transparency?
    Transmittance would be better, but as in my example with the green and red absorbers I fail to see the physical meaning of transmittance based on only one of them. You see, I’m a typical ‘dumb’ reader in this respect.

    Thus, my guess is that I can arbitrarily lock a ~8.85 year wave to any perigee
    If you think that makes sense, yes.

    Here’s an easier question: Using the LAC & LNC periods you supplied, I’ve worked out what I think is the average period of the extreme proxigean tides: 10.27224978 years. Is this right?
    I wouldn’t know. Nobody cares about this, so your number may be correct or not. I don’t know. If you post your calculation I can check it.

Comments are closed.