Jones v McIntyre

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2009/08/
Why does McIntyre want the data?
...But McIntyre insists hat he’s not interested in challenging the science of climate change, or in nit-picking; rather he is simply asking that the “data be made available”.

...He’s especially aggrieved by the fact that hurricane expert Peter Webster at Georgia Tech University was recently provided with data that had been refused to him. McIntyre’s point here is that he should be treated as a legitimate academic given his background and publication record

But Webster points out that he was allowed access because of the nature of his request, which was very specific and will result in a joint publication with Phil Jones. “Reasonable requests should be fulfilled because making data available advances science”, says Webster, “but it has to be an authentic request because otherwise you’d be swamped".

Once the data become publicly available, Jones wants McIntyre to produce a global temperature record. “Science advances that way. He might then realize how robust the global temperature record is”, says Jones. Asked if he would take on the challenge, McIntyre said that it’s not a priority for him, but added “if someone wanted to hire me, I’d do it”.

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

So McIntyre does not want the data he just wants others unamed to have the data.
Webster got the data because it will result in a joint Jones Webster publication.
seems different conditions to me

How "much" data must UEA retain - about 4 cu metres! and 3 tonnes

Assumptions:
Most early records would have been on paper. Perhaps one sheet/month?
1000 stations (out of perhaps 5000)for 50 years to 1980s (i.e. the first record produced in the 1930s on average)
Making no allowance for dividers for filing or shelves etc. Just the paper:

50 years
12 months/y
1 A4 sheet/month
1000 Stations
5 cm/ream (measured)
500 sheets/ream
21 width A4
29.5 height A4

sheets total 600000
reams 1200
height 60 metres
volume 3.717 cu metres

Taking this a step further
using 80 gsm paper
total area 37170.00 sq metres
total weight 2.97 tonnes

I do rather wonder where McIntyre would have kept all that paper!

So to preserve raw data would take a storage space of a lot more than 4cu metres.
These sheets would have been transcribed into computer format, possibly with errors added and errors corrected so the first computer record is NOT the raw data.
If you had to move office and you thought that you would never go back to your 4 metres^3 of raw data because your computer data was correct. And you had admin complaining that there was not room for your tatty bits of paper,. And it needed sorting and indexing to be useful. I think binning it would be a sensible option.

And if you wanted raw data the NMCs (National Meteorological Centres) would still have a copy so nothing is lost

Now if someone comes along and demands that you provide the raw data. What do you give them - your modified computer data, or the raw data?
Well they asked for the raw so how much will that cost:
£1800 @ £1.5 per ream.
+time+photocopy cost

and how long will that take:

600000 sheets of perhaps dog-eared paper (would require manual feeding)
5 seconds per sheet
6.5 working hours per day
is about 128 days photocopying

Probably manageable but would the recipients be happy with your 4 cu metres and 3 tonnes of data???????????

It is also interesting that with all these £1000000s being paid to UEA for climate research that they JUST purchased a new scanner in 2008 for a project and they were going to use it to ILLEGALLY(?) scan a document to satisfy McIntyre:

. This email came to CRU last night.
From: Steve McIntyre [[1] mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 5:09 PM
To: [2]alan.xxxxxx@uea.ac.uk
Subject: Farmer et al 1989
Dear Sir, Can you please send me a pdf of the Farmer et al 1989, cited in Folland
andPArker 1995, which, in turn is cited in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Thanks,
Steve McIntyre...
CRU has just the one copy of this! We've just got a new scanner for a project, so someone here is going to try this out - and scan the ~150pp. I'm doing this as this is one of the project reports that I wished I'd written up. It's got all the bucket equations,

-----------------------------
A reply!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jeff Alberts
Posted Mar 14, 2010 at 9:25 PM | Permalink | Reply
Something a few grad students could knock out. What’s the big deal?

Freak Current Takes Gulf Stream to Greenland

An unprecedented extreme in the northern hemisphere atmospheric circulation has driven a strong direct connecting current between the Gulf Stream and the West Greenland current. The unprecedented negativity of the "Arctic Oscillation" and the strong connection of the Gulf Stream with the Greenland current are exceptional events. More exceptional weather events are predicted with anthropogenic climate change, but this could be a natural variation of weather and currents
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/6/822520/-Freak-Current-Takes-Gulf-Stream-to-Greenland

Good Web Pages for climate stuff

Up to date site not seemingly pushing in either direction!
http://www.climate4you.com/

Giss temp code for download replicated in Python.
Latests Blog posts show that removal of some of the stations has NOT produced a warming trend

http://clearclimatecode.org/

Challenge to Watts

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/message-to-anthony-watts

Message to Anthony Watts
March 5, 2010 · 8 Comments
Anthony:

It has now been independenly confirmed, by multiple persons, that my results regarding the impact of station dropout on global temperature are correct. Your claims, in your document with Joe D’Aleo for the SPPI, are just plain wrong.

You’ve avoided answering this criticism, claiming that you can’t replicate my results without my code. Yet several others managed to do just that. It’s not that difficult, and you were irresponsible not to investigate this issue before publishing your claims. The posts by E.M. Smith are so incoherent they resemble the ravings of a lunatic more than the results of a qualified analyst. Your only other response has been to call me a coward for blogging under a pseudonym. That’s nothing but a desperate attempt of a scoundrel to deflect attention from his own misdeeds.

Furthermore, your use of false claims to accuse NOAA scientists of deliberate deception was not just mistaken, it was unethical.

If you have any honor at all, you’ll set the record straight. You owe it to everyone, and especially to NOAA, to admit that you were wrong. And you certainly owe it to NOAA to apologize. You need to make a highly visible, highly public admission of error, and apology, for using falsehoods to accuse others of fraud.

Are you man enough?

Attack on Jones

A dump of a post I made at CA in case it gets deleted

thefordprefect
Posted Mar 5, 2010 at 7:15 AM | Permalink | Reply“I have no pity for him. His situation is his own fault.”

What!!!!!
The noise generated by an email from jones where he quipped about someones (natural) death (“In an odd way this is cheering news !” Jones did not wish him ill) and now you say Jones deserves what he gets.

His research results are comparable to 2 others. How can you suggest it has been falsified? Where’s your evidence? Where’s your justification for wishing him ill?

Do you honestly think that 10s of thousands of scientists are colluding in a gigantic fraud, and not one of them, their co-workers, their secretaries, etc. etc. (perhaps 100,000s people) has seen the light and shown a single statement that confirms this conspiracy to defraud?

Remember, Some of the death threats Jones (and others presumably) get will be from readers of this and watts blog.

It disgusts me that someone who has been researching climate for 30 years should be treated this way. His mental suffering was evident from the hearing video.

How can YOU justify hounding a human being to the point that he contemplates suicide?

Global Warming will not destroy the human race, but the vilification of climate researchers makes me wonder if it is worth saving any way.

A very saddened and disgusted, Mike

“We’re getting a handful of nasty emails coming and requests for comments on other
blog sites. One email has gone to the University Registrar because of the language used.
Keith had one that said he was responsible for millions of deaths! Even one reading far
too much into his off ill message.
Even though I’ve had loads of FOIs and nasty emails, a few in the last 2 days have
been the worst yet. I’m realizing more what those working on animal experiments must
have gone through.
Cheers
Phil”

Makes you proud to be human doesn’t it.
--------------
RomanM
Posted Mar 5, 2010 at 8:36 AM | Permalink | ReplyRemember, Some of the death threats Jones (and others presumably) get will be from readers of this and watts blog.
I see this as a very serious allegation against myself and other regular commentators at this site. I would suggest that you either provide some evidence to support this or withdraw the statement.

Sending threats of causing harm to someone is a vile and despicable act. Making an unfounded accusation that I am part of a group of individuals that will do that is irresponsible at best

--------------
Please note I did not mean contributors here as McIntyre usually reigns comments in. In fact there are probably millions of readers at these sites and only a few contribute. I'm sure you will admit that they will have gaioned information from these blogs and some will consequently have written "strong" messages to AGW researchers.

However:
Why was a whole thread pulled at CA a year(?) ago?

From Watts

Lemon (11:01:28) :
I have no more sympathy for these fools than I had for Siegried & Roy after the lion attacked. Play with fire…
Their death might save trillions of dollars and millions of lives
Chemist (16:48:18) :
I’ll be the one to say it: I hope they die so that their deaths will draw attention to the truth of this issue. If they succeed, then it will be just another propaganda piece. With their deaths, they can bring actual change by allowing the world to industrialize

There are others But these are still on the web site.

-------------
Rachelle Young (20:52:54) :

I would be content to see all three of them freeze to death or be eaten by ‘endangered’ polar bears. That would teach the world something.

Rate of loss of Arctic Sea Ice Area per day of year

For the period covered by the satellite 2002 to 2010 the change in extent on a particular day of the year is plotted as a linear trend.
It is interesting that just before the summer melt (May) the area increases by 5000sqkm over the 9 years.
There is then a sharp fall to 20,000 sqkm loss per year in october.
The area change over the remaining year seems to be about 5000sqkm/year

Is the rise from April to may due to delayed melt? or is it spreading of melting ice?

A good misquote from ages past

I rather like the mis-quote from the Club of Rome:
the mis-quote:
http://green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
---------------------------
The real quote:
http://www.archive.org/download/TheFirstGlobalRevolution/TheFirstGlobalRevolution.pdf
The common enemy of humanity is Man
In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill.
In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes.
All these dangers are caused by human intervention In natural processes. and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.
-----------------------------
somewhat different!

Limits to growth:
https://ia902508.us.archive.org/27/items/TheLimitsToGrowth/TheLimitsToGrowth.pdf

IPCC stuff

According to watts:
"Pachauri’s TERI institute golf course – water hog in a city desperate for fresh water"
It may be a pack of lies but this is what TERI say:
http://www.teriin.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32

There is a golf course and 2 cricket pitches (monoculture not good for the environment!)

CO2 saturation

An understandable explanation of CO2 and how it will not saturate:

"So, if a skeptical friend hits you with the "saturation argument" against global warming, here’s all you need to say: (a) You’d still get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the atmosphere were saturated, because it’s the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere (which is unsaturated) that counts (b) It’s not even true that the atmosphere is actually saturated with respect to absorption by CO2, (c) Water vapor doesn’t overwhelm the effects of CO2 because there’s little water vapor in the high, cold regions from which infrared escapes, and at the low pressures there water vapor absorption is like a leaky sieve, which would let a lot more radiation through were it not for CO2, and (d) These issues were satisfactorily addressed by physicists 50 years ago, and the necessary physics is included in all climate models"

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/

Air frost days UK

From a Post deleted on WUWT (why!?)**

a plot of airforost days in the uk from a few stations:




**[snip - nice try "thefordprefect" - you are no longer welcome here when you do shape shifting, pick a name preferably your real one, and stick with it, otherwise bugger off]

More DDT guff

http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html
WHO Note for the Press No 15 28 November 2000
DDT USE IN MALARIA PREVENTION AND CONTROL
http://www.malaria.org/whopressreleaseddt1100.html
DDT still has an important role to play in saving lives and reducing the burden of malaria in some of the world's poorest countries, states the World Health Organisation (WHO) as the international community considers phasing it out.

More than 120 governments, inter-governmental and non-government agencies are meeting next week (December 4-9) in Johannesburg, South Africa, to finalize an international treaty to reduce and/or eliminate the production and use of 12 persistent organic pollutants, including DDT.

WHO has been working in collaboration with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to provide treaty negotiators with information on the health and environmental issues associated with DDT as well as the current use of DDT in malaria control.

Although DDT has been banned from agricultural use in most countries since the 1970s due to its damaging effects on the environment, it continues to be used in limited quantities for public health purposes. For many malaria-affected countries, responsible DDT use is a vital strategy for preventing malaria transmission and controlling epidemics. Countries continue to use DDT primarily because they cannot afford reliable alternatives or do not have the capacity to develop them.

In order to ensure that treaty restriction on DDT will not result in an increase in malaria deaths, WHO and the Roll Back Malaria partnership (RBM) are encouraging the negotiators to support time-limited exemptions for the public health use of DDT. In addition WHO is calling for new financial resources to aid in the development of and orderly transition to cost-effective alternatives to DDT for malaria vector control.

According to Dr David Heymann, WHO Executive Director for Communicable Diseases: "Time limited exemptions are critically important to the ultimate success of this treaty. Countries that are currently using DDT for malaria vector control need the time and the resources to identify and implement the alternatives that work for them."

WHO emphasizes the importance of assuring that DDT is used only for public health vector control and in accordance with WHO guidelines.

"WHO recommends that DDT should be used only for indoor residual spraying and every step must be taken to prevent DDT from being diverted to agricultural uses," says Dr Heymann. "Projections suggest that the amounts of DDT needed for malaria control are a very small fraction of what has been used in the past for agricultural purposes."

WHO is working with malaria-affected countries and other Roll Back Malaria partners to develop a systematic approach to reducing reliance on DDT while assuring that people continue to be protected from malaria.

WHO states that reducing reliance on DDT needs to be part of an overall strategy of strengthening malaria control. There is a need building robust capacity for malaria control at country level that supports the development and utilization of a range of methods to prevent malaria transmission that are cost-effective, sustainable and rely less on chemicals in general.

In addition to the issue of exemptions, negotiators in Johannesburg will be discussing the financial and technical resources required to implement the treaty. According to Dr Heymann, "The countries that rely on DDT are some of the poorest in the world. Without additional resources they will be unable to make much progress in reducing reliance on DDT. We hope that the treaty will result in significant new funding in the coming years, in the meantime we must look to all available sources."

With the assistance of the RBM partnership, Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua and Panama have already mobilized $750,000 for reducing reliance on DDT, as part of a regional project supported by the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The partnership is also seeking resources for similar efforts across Africa and Asia
-------
DDT leaves stains on mud walls, which was the primary
reason South Africa’s malaria control program replaced
the use of DDT in 1996 with another chemical class—
synthetic pyrethroids—although pressure from environmentalists
certainly contributed.
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20071102_22368HPO14Bate_g.pdf

John Graham-Cumming: Climate Change Skepticism: You're doing it wrong

John Graham-Cumming: Climate Change Skepticism: You're doing it wrong

How much warming

From post on WUWT:

What is evident from my plot is that the period from 1985 to present does not (yet !!) conform to the general linear trend. Adding a trend line to 1985 to present gives a warming of 4.4degC/century (got it right this time I think)


The current trend in CET is negative so there is a possibility that in a decade or so there will be a return to the .3C/100year average. But can we wait to find out?

Looking at satellite data:


data: http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
the channel CHLT (no longer reported – too much of an incline??!!) gives a temp increase of 11C/century.
It would be interesting to know why this channel was dropped.

oh dear 2

After an altercation on wuwt about watts not releasing data for his surface stations and then complaining that another has used some early stuff. I suggested that this was similar to CRU witholding data and he suggests that I am hiding behind a pseudonym. My reply:

tfp (20:20:22) :

Anthony this is why I will not post under my real name:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jan/27/james-delingpole-climate-change-denial
“Within a few minutes of the comments opening, they had published the man’s telephone number and email address, a photo of his house (“Note all the recycling going on in his front garden”), his age and occupation”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100024152/monbiot-an-apology/ Damocles on Jan 28th, 2010 at 2:23:
“I’ve got to say that I saw the comments on that blog and I was rather shocked.
Bue then you pulled it and that was a redeeming act.”

I’m sure you get similar.

I do not want to expose my family to hate mail/death threats/abuse. My pseudonym is my firewall.

I have posted analysis on scientific threads/ I have posted comments like the above where I see unfair bias. Its your blog do what you will!

REPLY: OK Fine, final question then. Your electronics company there in the UK has a contract with the U.S. Navy for some avionics test systems. Somebody takes that design, reverse engineers it, and sells a product based on your work. Is that fair use?

That’s the case with me here. All my pages have a copyright notice on them. I did the work for over two years, and Menne et al took the work and made something from it without permission, against my protestations even. Unless you are prepared to say your company’s designs should be fair game for anyone to use and profit from, I suggest you kindly refrain from criticizing my project further. – Anthony


So the great man exposes the company I work for after my explanation of the my posting anonimity. Is this a threat to me saying he knows my employer and will complain about posting on company time (actually break times) or is he threatening to expose my home address (availablefrom my ip address).

Who knows!

Watts uses this trick whenever he is annoyed by posters. Very sad!

Update 2009/02/14
Good Grief - it makes me so angry!
Posted reasonable stuff and then this happens
tfp (14:56:46) :

DeWitt Payne (10:14:57) :
My guess is that the x axis is in decimal years and so your slope is 2.58E-03 C/year not month.
Too true. my engineering caution deserted me. Apologies!

What is evident from my plot is that the period from 1985 to present does not (yet !!) conform to the general linear trend. Adding a trend line to 1985 to present gives a warming of 4.4degC/century (got it right this time I think)
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/7086/cet.png

The current trend in CET is negative so there is a possibility that in a decade or so there will be a return to the .3C/100year average. But can we wait to find out?

Looking at satellite data:
http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/6361/amsu.png

data: http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
the channel CHLT (no longer reported – too much of an incline??!!) gives a temp increase of 11C/century.
It would be interesting to know why this channel was dropped.

REPLY: Still can’t stay away, shiny new email address eh Bill? You never did respond to this after accusing me of improper conduct. Me thinks its time for you to be put into the troll bin, since changing email addresses and handles is a no no.
…
OK Fine, final question then. Your electronics company there in the UK has a contract with the U.S. Navy for some avionics test systems. Somebody takes that design, reverse engineers it, and sells a product based on your work. Is that fair use?

That’s the case with me here. All my pages have a copyright notice on them. I did the work for over two years, and Menne et al took the work and made something from it without permission, against my protestations even. Unless you are prepared to say your company’s designs should be fair game for anyone to use and profit from, I suggest you kindly refrain from criticizing my project further. – Anthony


replied with

I posted as "tfp formerly bill" for a time to alert people to the name change - there were too many bills.
Shiny new email is because I could not remember (and the cookie with the correct one disappeared) which I used on this blog - I have many to trap blog operators who could sell it to spammers.

You never did respond to this after accusing me of improper conduct. Me thinks its time for you to be put into the troll bin, since changing email addresses and handles is a no no.
I responded with a long reply (long since forgotten) but it never appeared - I assumed I was banned. perhaps it is in your spam bin?

OK Fine, final question then. Your electronics company there ...test systems.
I do not appreciate my empoyment being referenced on line by yourself.
From my IP addresses you obviously can determine my home address, real name, and from that many other personal details. I trust these will NOT be exposed?

Reading my comments leading to your original reply I made NO accusation of your improper conduct.
(re-reading I did say accessing CRU data that was not public fell into the computer misuse act :
A person is guilty of an offence if
(a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer;
(b) the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and
(c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.)
---
I would suggest that if you did not access the data then there is no problem. I was only pointing out a fact - the Computer Misuse Act

And it is blocked! I thought it reasonable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!