|
Post by socold on Mar 6, 2010 18:40:41 GMT
I think You are wrong on this Socold. Jones was asked to show the underlying raw data used by CRU. You see we don't know that. Not even now. Because the SMHI, and others, forbid him from releasing it. The SMHI backs up Jone's claim - because they directly tell him he can't publish the underlying raw data. This isn't about the current version of SMHI data, it's about the version that Jone's has. The issue is that SMHI won't allow him to publish that data. It won't help. The FOI request and everyone since is demanding the data from Jones, not simply for him to say which data he used. If he says he's using an old version of the SMHI data for example, people will still demand he provide that. But the SMHI say he cannot. I suspect he has old data that is no longer available from SMHI. The bottom line is actually that all this is irrelevant, as it has been from the outset from the moment FOI requests were made. We can reproduce the CRU results from GHCN data. So what CRU doesn't provide does not call into question CRU's results. Even if we completely ignore CRU - we still have NOAA and GISTEMP and JMA global temperature records showing the same thing. If you want Swedish data why not download the current SMHI data? If you want to check HadCRUT why not perform the analysis using that current SMHI data and see if the results agrees with the HadCRUT results? Because afterall if using the current SMHI data you reach the same result as HadCRUT, then how can anyone say there's an issue here at all? But oddly - and this is a repeated oddness that pervades the skeptic community - noone seems to have bothered to actually reproduce the global temperature record using the available data. What I see instead is people making a load of FOI requests for data and saying they have suspicions. If they really cared about resolving such suspicions, they would go away, do the analysis and only come back with those suspicions if there is a disagreement between their results and CRU's.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 6, 2010 18:52:29 GMT
SoCold
you say
"The SMHI backs up Jone's claim - because they directly tell him he can't publish the underlying raw data."
you are wrong.
As I said in another thread the SMHI press release says:
"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."
There is nothing there forbidding Jones to publish his raw data - what the Swedes say is that they are reluctant to be associated with "data that has undergone “processing” by the East Anglia research unit" that is passed off as raw data.
In other words if you want raw data it is freely publicly and RELIABLY available from SMHI don't trust CRU.
For a politically worded press release this is extremely hard hitting.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 6, 2010 18:55:14 GMT
"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." Quite clearly Jone's was correct - the SMHI do not want him to hand out their data. They want people to get it right from them. On the contrary - quite clearly Jones was dissembling From the press release: "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."
note that the quotes around processing are from the press release - a sign of suspicion from the SMHI You've been duped. This press release is not from the SMHI. It's from a Swedish think-tank calling itself the "Stockholm Initiative", which if you visit their website is clearly a swedish version of something like the Heartland Institute. Consider carefully how you got the impression it was from the SMHI, did perhaps the blog you read it from not make it's source clear? Why would they do that? Hmmm. The actual SMHI email says: "SMHI has in a letter, dated November 30, from UK MetOffice, received your request regarding the release of data from the HadCRUT dataset.
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."Nothing about "processing" is even mentioned. They talking about Jone's having an older version of their data and they don't want that published. The part that you highlighted from the think-tank "press release" is nothing but spin. Wow. So not only has some Swedish think-tank "paraphrased" (or rather distorted) what the SMHI were saying, but you go a step further and paraphrase the paraphrase? The email from the SMHI backs up what Phil Jone's said. It's evidence of what he claimed. The amazing thing is how it has been spun 180 degrees to pretend that he lied. Wow.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 6, 2010 19:07:28 GMT
On the contrary - quite clearly Jones was dissembling From the press release: "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."
note that the quotes around processing are from the press release - a sign of suspicion from the SMHI You've been duped. This press release is not from the SMHI. It's from a Swedish think-tank calling itself the "Stockholm Initiative", which if you visit their website is clearly a swedish version of something like the Heartland Institute. Consider carefully how you got the impression it was from the SMHI, did perhaps the blog you read it from not make it's source clear? Why would they do that? Hmmm. The actual SMHI email says: "SMHI has in a letter, dated November 30, from UK MetOffice, received your request regarding the release of data from the HadCRUT dataset.
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."Nothing about "processing" is even mentioned. They talking about Jone's having an older version of their data and they don't want that published. The part that you highlighted from the think-tank "press release" is nothing but spin. Wow. So not only has some Swedish think-tank "paraphrased" (or rather distorted) what the SMHI were saying, but you go a step further and paraphrase the paraphrase? The email from the SMHI backs up what Phil Jone's said. It's evidence of what he claimed. The amazing thing is how it has been spun 180 degrees to pretend that he lied. Wow. Translation of socold's apologetics: "It depends on what the definition of is is" socold do you realize how silly you are appearing?
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 6, 2010 19:58:23 GMT
"In Denial The meltdown of the climate campaign." "It is increasingly clear that the leak of the internal emails and documents of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in November has done for the climate change debate what the Pentagon Papers did for the Vietnam war debate 40 years ago—changed the narrative decisively. Additional revelations of unethical behavior, errors, and serial exaggeration in climate science are rolling out on an almost daily basis, and there is good reason to expect more." www.weeklystandard.com/print/articles/denial
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Mar 6, 2010 20:11:30 GMT
Socold You wrote: "But oddly - and this is a repeated oddness that pervades the skeptic community - noone seems to have bothered to actually reproduce the global temperature record using the available data."
But Socold: A lot of so called skeptics, have done that locally and globally. But the number don´t match! Then "we" try to figure out the difference and try to reproduce CRU result. But we cant even figure out which data is used by CRU. If we cant do that cant we trust CRU from a scientifically standpoint. As simple as that.
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Mar 6, 2010 21:06:30 GMT
Socold You wrote: "But oddly - and this is a repeated oddness that pervades the skeptic community - noone seems to have bothered to actually reproduce the global temperature record using the available data." But Socold: A lot of so called skeptics, have done that locally and globally. But the number don´t match! Then "we" try to figure out the difference and try to reproduce CRU result. But we cant even figure out which data is used by CRU. If we cant do that cant we trust CRU from a scientifically standpoint. As simple as that. Exactly. The warmist cult is down to using the Bart Simpson defense which works if you put glue on teacher's seat, but not when defending the conclusions of your science project.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 6, 2010 23:59:24 GMT
Socold You wrote: "But oddly - and this is a repeated oddness that pervades the skeptic community - noone seems to have bothered to actually reproduce the global temperature record using the available data." But Socold: A lot of so called skeptics, have done that locally and globally. But the number don´t match! So go on then don't just talk, prove it with actions. Link to a global analysis done by skeptics where the numbers don't match.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 7, 2010 0:50:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on Mar 8, 2010 21:09:49 GMT
You've been duped. This press release is not from the SMHI. It's from a Swedish think-tank calling itself the "Stockholm Initiative", which if you visit their website is clearly a swedish version of something like the Heartland Institute. Consider carefully how you got the impression it was from the SMHI, did perhaps the blog you read it from not make it's source clear? Why would they do that? Hmmm. The actual SMHI email says: "SMHI has in a letter, dated November 30, from UK MetOffice, received your request regarding the release of data from the HadCRUT dataset.
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."Nothing about "processing" is even mentioned. They talking about Jone's having an older version of their data and they don't want that published. The part that you highlighted from the think-tank "press release" is nothing but spin. I agree that there is a misrepresentation that the press release was from the SMHI. It clearly wasnt. However, I have to disagree on the last paragraph quoted above. The SMHI merely state that they understand that the data they have is different to the data the the CRU has. This does not mean that Jones has 'an older version', as socold suggests. It is simply that they believe that the two datasets are not the same. Since it is in the public domain that the CRU does not have original data, only 'added-value' data, the supposition by the Stockholm Initiative that the SMHI was objecting to 'added-value' data as being presented as being from the SMHI is not unreasonable. Not accurate as it's a supposition, but not unreasonable. I also have a problem with the idea that Jones has 'an older version'. Since we're talking about historical temperature records, how can there be an 'older version'? For there to be an 'older version', it would mean that historical temperatures had changed -- a physical impossibility (unless you have a time machine coupled to a weather control machine). It is only if you adjust the historical data can you have an 'older version', due to different adjustments. The SMHI has their data that is published. If the data the CRU has is different then it is not illogical to assume that the difference is because the CRU has adjusted that data in some way. On the subject of FOI requests, I understand that it is legitimate to refuse a request if the information requested is already in the public domain. Thus, the CRU could legitimately not release their Swedish data by stating that the information is already public domain and direct the inquirer to their SMHI website. The CRU did not do so. This could be interpreted as an implicit acknowledgment that the data they hold is different to the data that the SMHI holds, and the SMHI had clearly stated that they didn't want data that is different to what they hold being released (the followup email on the 4th March makes it clear that the CRU could release the data they hold as long as they don't attribute it to the SMHI). Also on the FOI requests, can someone clarify when the CRU first stated that they couldn't release the data because of a confidentiality agreement with Sweden? I seem to recall that the data that that statement was originally made was prior to the letter from the SMHI (which I believe is dated Dec 2009 ) and Prof Jones was just repeating that information on 1st March. Can anyone confirm this or is my memory playing tricks? ;D In Prof Jones's defense, his statement on the 1st March is not unreasonable, given that the SMHI's letter in December 2009 was not clear that it was only the attribution that they objected to. That letter could be interpreted as stating that they didn't want the CRU's version of the data released at all. They clarified this in their letter of 4th March, which is after Prof Jones's statement.
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Mar 9, 2010 2:29:51 GMT
Socold, I could easily post some of my own research "where the numbers don't match." For example, in 1796, the minimum temperature in Natchez, Mississippi was 17 degrees F. So far in 2010, the minimum temperature AT THE SAME SITE was 11 degrees F. Of course, that proves it is getting colder - not. And proving the inadequacy of that statement is trivial - even though it is true.
In reality, the ideal would be the same instrument, with the same accuracy or biases, at the same pristine site, for a century or two. That will give you something to work with. But the silliness Jones (not Jone's) is trying to fob off on the gullible puts all science in a very bad light.
Stranger
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Mar 9, 2010 3:15:04 GMT
socold, You have it exactly backwards. And you are swallowing big fibs by Jones. Jones wanted permission to call his massaged data from Sweden 'original'. The Swedes said no. The resolve of AGW believers in defending their guys, even when caught flat out lying, is impressive. But do you think yo will win by shoving lies through? Do yo not have any personal integrity left?
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 11, 2010 16:18:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 12, 2010 5:13:02 GMT
What I see instead is people making a load of FOI requests for data and saying they have suspicions. If they really cared about resolving such suspicions, they would go away, do the analysis and only come back with those suspicions if there is a disagreement between their results and CRU's. That makes you sound like a despot Socold. . . .totally contrary to the notion of a government "for the people". It is wrong to make a taxpayer pay twice for the same work. . . .especially if that work is affecting him. Its easy to say someone should do the work on their own but that fails bitterly to recognize that the work was done in the first place using taxpayer money and that work should belong to all who paid for it . . .suspicions or not. The reason why somebody wants access to the data is completely irrelevant and trying to make an excuse out of it is a mockery of a free nation.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Mar 12, 2010 13:23:11 GMT
icefisher, socold only represents a small example of the religious hubris and circular thinking at the heart of AGW.
|
|