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
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.
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).
Paul Vaughan (09:54:17) :
He has provided some info.
Not good enough.
One of the “Who we are” in SI is Professor Karlen;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/when-results-go-bad/#more-13373
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.
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.
[snip]
Invalid email address. ~dbs, mod.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Re: a jones (21:29:33)
With venom like that, you might just succeed in convincing people to buy into computer fantasy alternatives.
This was followed by a sudden stratospheric warming and chaotic changes in the jetstream:
http://spaceweather.com/swpod2010/19jan10/stereob_mflare_big.gif?PHPSESSID=8v7bvr80dlodh6dsj3jadqapu5&PHPSESSID=bvg717e0mgn07mmdihgtfh9n82
But just voodoo eh?
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
a jones (22:10:23) “only chaotic variation in the climate system”
Ok I see – you are an AGWer.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
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].