Swedes call out Jones on data availability

A+!

Talk about lack of confidence in UEA!!!!!!!

Didn’t he also say that Canada wouldn’t agree, either?

AGW people delivering false statements?? Now that’s news!

Corbyn’s SLAM (Solar Lunar Amplification Magnetic) process explains Jones’ beloved hadSST (Hadley Sea Surface Temperature):
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/SLAMhadSST58a.png
More here:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/VolcanoStratosphereSLAM.htm

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.”

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.

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.

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!

So the SMHI data is on the Web, is that what they are saying?

Pants on fire . . .

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.

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

“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!

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.

@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.

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,

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.

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.

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)

And isnt this what Karlen Wibjørn tried to say? When he plotted SMHI data, he got a different result ? And when he complained, he got stonewalled?
Nils Axel Mørners story is also a very inconvinient thruth;
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf

Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When we practise to deceive.
House of Commons don’t like
a) being patronised or
b) porkies

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.

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.

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?

See:
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/013481.html

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.

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.

As far as I can see, all this is taking place subsequent to the FOI requests which were refused on the grounds of preexisting NDAs. The NDAs cited did not include Sweden:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/agreements.pdf

@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. 🙂

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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) :

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

Dessa svenskar måste vara kättare!

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…

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.

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

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.

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.

Dr. Jones lied. In Scandinavia (Norway, Sweden and Denmark) we most often have equal laws and follow equal routines. Nearly all kind og information is public. You can even check what my income was, how wealthy I am and how much I paid in tax last year.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fskatt.abcnyheter.no%2Findex.html

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.

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

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. . .

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”.

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.

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.

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.

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.
http://www.bom.gov.au/tmp/cc/tmean.aus.0112.7642.png
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Liar, liar, pants on fire. And it has nothing to do with “global warming”.

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.

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.

I asked Acton’s office directly about Canada, and they changed their story. You can read about my inquiries in the “fast” comments section at Dr. Motl’s blog:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/royal-society-of-chemistry-defends.html

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

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!

Six data sets went quack quack quack
One data set never came back
And that’s about the maturity level of data handling.

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??

@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.

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.

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.

@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.

here’s Brewarrina Hospital comparison between CRU and BoM.
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Brewarrina_CRU.jpg

We don’t know what CRU is – max, min , mean?

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.

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.

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.

@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!

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

Re: Leif Svalgaard (06:06:09)
Note the hypothetical “would”.
Explanation or not, people see the successful forecasts.

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.

@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.

Re: Leif Svalgaard (11:41:44)
85% success with forecasts. 15% failure. Both visible (to anyone paying attention).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Leif, play the ball, not the man.
================

My two cents,
Jones is still trying to lie is way out of jail, and this time the Swedes caught him trying to put their moniker on his adjustments.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/12964
I wonder how many other nations are now rechecking their correspondence with CRU and MET and checking the data?

“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

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.
==============

And flying monkeys type out back page New York Times ads.
====================

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.

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’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?
========