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.
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)?
clarification: By “numbers” I mean state vector (from which other quantities can be derived).
Paul Vaughan (00:45:23) :
Nautical Almanac, 1974?
Yes.
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].
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!
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.
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?
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”
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)?
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
I’ll figure this stuff out independently. Cheers.