Jones and the CRU exonerated again

[uke2se]

The parlimentary report refers to an "Independent" review, this paper is from and "International" review. I would agree it's probably the one they were refering to, I'm looking for clarification.

Three investigations were started into this matter. Two are done. One is left.

 

[Furcifer]

Three investigations were started into this matter. Two are done. One is left.

So the jury is still out?

I'm having trouble believing anyone in these threads. The inquiry isn't over and it falls short of exonerating anyone.

And what about the hacker? He/she seems to have fallen off the radar. Seems strange.

 

[uke2se]

So the jury is still out?

I'm having trouble believing anyone in these threads. The inquiry isn't over and it falls short of exonerating anyone.

Not really. There's three separate inquiries. Two of them have exonerated CRU and Jones.

And what about the hacker? He/she seems to have fallen off the radar. Seems strange.

Now, this I agree with. I'd like a full investigation into the political motivation for the hack.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Now, this I agree with. I'd like a full investigation into the political motivation for the hack.

Well, let's not go assuming anything. I also want to see an investigation into the hack itself, but I shall reserve judgment on any motivations until we get the results of said investigation back.

 

[uke2se]

Well, let's not go assuming anything. I also want to see an investigation into the hack itself, but I shall reserve judgment on any motivations until we get the results of said investigation back.

Fair enough.

There's a little conspiracy theorist in all of us, and mine just made himself known.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Fair enough.

There's a little conspiracy theorist in all of us, and mine just made himself known.

Just keeping you honest, baby

 

[blutoski]

Try a different browser, blutoski; Looks fine to me on FireFox latest under Windows XP.

I could read it fine, but it didn't look like a typical government press release.

No real title page, name of publisher, date of publication.

It looks more like an internal document or memo or something. I can see that there's a list of authors and date of submission at the end of the report.

It's just an unexpected formatting.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Not really. There's three separate inquiries. Two of them have exonerated CRU and Jones.

Now, this I agree with. I'd like a full investigation into the political motivation for the hack.

Can you show me where the inquiry actually uses the word "exonerate"?

I could read it fine, but it didn't look like a typical government press release.

No real title page, name of publisher, date of publication.

It looks more like an internal document or memo or something. I can see that there's a list of authors and date of submission at the end of the report.

Noit to mention the report itself was surprisingly short too.
And when you consider it was written by 'friends', I wonder what real critics or independant minds might have said.

 

[daenku32]

I wonder when the skeptics are going to issue an apology to CRU and Jones for accusing them of fraud.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Not really. There's three separate inquiries. Two of them have exonerated CRU and Jones.

If the Spiegel's summary still holds good

The problem is that the quality of the raw data derived from weather services around the world differs considerably. At a number of weather stations, temperatures rose because houses and factories had been built around them. Elsewhere, stations were moved and, as a result, suddenly produced different readings. In all of these cases, Jones had to use statistical methods to correct the errors in the temperature readings, using an approach called "homogenization."

Did Jones proceed correctly while homogenizing the data? Most climatologists still believe Jones' contention that he did not intentionally manipulate the data. However, that belief will have to remain rooted in good faith. Under the pressure of McIntyre's attacks, Jones had to admit something incredible: He had deleted his notes on how he performed the homogenization. This means that it is not possible to reconstruct how the raw data turned into his temperature curve.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,687259,00.html

Then no matter how many inquiries clear him, his scientific credibility is shot to pieces whatever the JREF peanut gallery say.

Incidentally

German climatologist Hans von Storch now wants to see an independent institution recalculate the temperature curve, and he even suggests that the skeptics be involved in the project. He points out, however, that processing the data will take several years.

"There is no other way to regain the trust that has been lost," he says, "even if I'm certain that the new curve will not look significantly different from the old one."

And if it does? "That would definitely be the worst-case scenario for climatology. We would have to start all over again."

What a great idea!

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I wonder when the skeptics are going to issue an apology to CRU and Jones for accusing them of fraud.

Do you want some apologies at JREF? Cool, I will be the first when you find some quotes by me accusing him of same.
Perhaps you could even name those of us who have accused hime of fraud. Ok?

What a great idea!

I agree and believe that there is a need to start from scratch, with a complete overhaul of 'structure', procedure, best practice, with robust internal checks and a code of practice or similar.

As you say, the credibility - not just of Jones but many others - remains shot to pieces or tainted by association regardless of any inquiry. Others will disagree no doubt, but "meh" in advance.

 

[little grey rabbit]

I suspect lgr has swallowed whole the denier lie that the world isn't really warming, it's just the UHI effect that's making it look like it's warming because all the thermometers are in or near urban areas. So it's the instrumental temperature record that's wrong, and the tree rings are proving it. Of course that fails to take into account that

1. The UHI effect is well known and well understood and accounted for when producing the instrumental temperature record

Unfortunately I have gotten around to reading the paper you provided yet, so I will take your word for it.
However, as I see, given there is no such thing as a representative global temperature, any single figure created is going to susceptible to hidden biases that may not be immediately obvious. Are continental interiors and large ocean masses under-represented, are coastal littoral and settled areas over represented.

2. The places where the tree ring divergence problem is showing up - places like Alaska - are a long way from any urban heat islands, so the locally measured temperature won't be affected by them anyway

Firstly I have to assume the data exists as you say it does. That there is a good series of thermometer measurements in Alaska, which can be paired with a continuous series of tree ring measurements. However, even your assumption that there would be no urban heat islands in Alaska might not be true. Alaska may seem unpopulated to you, but it does have towns and cities - moreover the difference between the heat pumped out in the settlements and the surrounding temperatures is much greater than say, Texas. Just because Alaskan cities FEEL cooler than their southern counterparts, the question is how much they are raised above their surroundings.
Whether this effects the paired series of measurements you seem to be suggesting exists is another matter, but it can't be automatically assumed not to just because its Alaska.

3. Other proxies, including other tree ring proxies, continue to agree with the instrumental temperature record.

Actually, ocean temperatures is also a proxy of a sort

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/ocean_warming_fig1.JPG

Edited by LashL: 

Removed breach of Rule 5. Do not hotlink images.

Harrison, D.E., and M. Carson. 2007. Is the World Ocean Warming? Upper-Ocean Temperature Trends: 1950–2000. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 37, 174-187.

Another anomalous proxy or is it the well known "thermometer divergence problem"?

 

[lomiller]

There are far too many better papers showing ocean heat content is increasing, and that this increase enormous (10^23J increase since 1980). This is confirmed by both direct measurement and indirectly by the oceans are undergoing thermal expansion.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7198/full/nature07080.html

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

 

[varwoche]

Do you want some apologies at JREF? Cool, I will be the first when you find some quotes by me accusing him of same.
Perhaps you could even name those of us who have accused hime of fraud. Ok?

Ah, the infamous I-Hope-Nobody-Bothers-To-Check school of debate. Unfortunately, seeing as you've virtually spammed the forum with CRU smears, readers aren't going to forget anytime soon. You may want to wait a couple of years before foisting this meta lie again.

And please spare me this ridiculous yet predictable evasion:

I was just asking questions.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Do you want some apologies at JREF? Cool, I will be the first when you find some quotes by me accusing him of same.
Perhaps you could even name those of us who have accused hime of fraud. Ok?

Uhhh... AAA, you do know that he/we aren't necessarily talking about you, right? So stop taking our criticisms of the hardcore deniers so personally.

Btw, PopTech has repeatedly accused Jones & CRU of fraud. Repeatedly.

But you aren't PopTech, so stop blowing your stack, m'kay?

 

[a_unique_person]

Do you want some apologies at JREF? Cool, I will be the first when you find some quotes by me accusing him of same.
Perhaps you could even name those of us who have accused hime of fraud. Ok?

SOP for you Alfie, never claim anything yourself, just say other people are saying it.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Ah, the infamous I-Hope-Nobody-Bothers-To-Check school of debate. Unfortunately, seeing as you've virtually spammed the forum with CRU smears, readers aren't going to forget anytime soon. You may want to wait a couple of years before foisting this meta lie again.

You have just accused me of lying: please show me where I have accused Jones of fraud.
It is you Varwoche who is the liar.

Uhhh... AAA, you do know that he/we aren't necessarily talking about you, right? So stop taking our criticisms of the hardcore deniers so personally.

The accusation was to the "skeptics", not hard core deniers, I consider myself a skeptic, but wear the term denier that is arbitrarily placed on me by warmibles.

Btw, PopTech has repeatedly accused Jones & CRU of fraud. Repeatedly.

Poptech has gone (many cheer) - so I presumed the statement was directed at the other "skeptics" remaining here, myself included. We have yet to hear from daenku32 that this is not the case.

But you aren't PopTech, so stop blowing your stack, m'kay?

Actually I am very calm - far from blowing my stack - if this stuff actually got to me in any way I would have 'resigned' long ago.
But I really dislike sweeping generalisations especially when the vast majority do not fall into the generalisation made.

I suspect it is because I am reminded of this quote:

All generalizations are dangerous, even this one.
Alexandre Dumas

SOP for you Alfie, never claim anything yourself, just say other people are saying it.

Good, so the statement about calling "fraud" on Jones is a lie (when it comes to those in JREF) and you can procuce no evidence to the contrary.

 

[a_unique_person]

Funny thing is, though, you never notice when something is said in support of AGW, only against it. If all you are doing is asking questions, I would have thought they would have gone both ways.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Uhhh... AAA, you do know that he/we aren't necessarily talking about you, right? So stop taking our criticisms of the hardcore deniers so personally.

Btw, PopTech has repeatedly accused Jones & CRU of fraud. Repeatedly.

The inability to produce data or reproduce working or methods is one of the most obvious warning signs of fraud.

I think everyone believes that Phil Jones probably tweaked the output in some way (ie, some level of fraud) what people are not sure about is was it to the level to make a difference of any significance.

The only defense against an accusation of fraud is to produce the lab records or data, provide the methodology and say "do it yourself then".

Phil Jones can't or won't do this.

 

[little grey rabbit]

There are far too many better papers showing ocean heat content is increasing, and that this increase enormous (10^23J increase since 1980). This is confirmed by both direct measurement and indirectly by the oceans are undergoing thermal expansion.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7198/full/nature07080.html

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

What criticism to you have of this paper and how do you think the others improved on it.

If I look at panel A of the graph above, I see a mass of raw data readings that anyone can look at and draw their own conclusion. The links you provide only show data after being massaged by algorithms and data weighting, usually to produce a single global figure.

Here we report improved estimates of near-global ocean heat content and thermal expansion for the upper 300 m and 700 m of the ocean for 1950–2003, using statistical techniques that allow for sparse data coverage5, 6, 7 and applying recent corrections8 to reduce systematic biases in the most common ocean temperature observations

Do you accept panel A as a genuine unbiased cloud of points of ocean temperature or can you provide your own?

Perhaps if we applied an algorithms and data weighting to tree rings we would be able to eliminate that problem too.

Then all we would have to do is find some way to abolish reality!