HadCRUT watch

Normally we see the HadCRUT monthly temperature data released by about the 20th of each month. It is now November 2nd, and the data has not yet been published. I can’t recall them ever being two weeks late.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/1b/Hadley_Centre.svg/140px-Hadley_Centre.svg.png

HadCRUT (Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature, UK)
HadCRUT3 anomaly data which can be found here
description of the HadCRUT3 data file columns is here

Perhaps they are a bit flummoxed with recent developments, such as the erasing of “sensitive” temperature  data, or maybe they are just busy processing FOI’s?

Or maybe its the new supercomputer holding up the data?

Maybe the row over one tree has them delayed. Or maybe the 25% funding cut?

Who knows, but it sure is odd to see them so late getting the data out the door.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate data. Bookmark the permalink.

125 Responses to HadCRUT watch

  1. Robert M. says:

    I imagine they are so busy trying to figure out how to cover their colletive [self-snip,] that they don’t have time to do their jobs.

  2. Oldjim says:

    Perhaps the program producing the result had links to the historical data and needs that information to produce the end result.
    Now they may need to go through the code changing all the links to wherever the data is now stored. Or did they change the access permissions to the folders and the program can’t access the data.
    Alternatively am I just being a bit too cynical

  3. Pamela Gray says:

    Maybe their still stuck in that car wreck? They would be driving the Prius.

  4. Pamela Gray says:

    Or I could say it this way:

    May they’re still stuck in that car wreck?

  5. paul revere says:

    It takes time to cook the data just right.

  6. Willy Nilly says:

    Was it last year they were caught publishing September Siberian temperatures in the October data? Maybe this year theyre waiting to publish the September and October data together as one — just redefine one month as two — now try challenging our Siberian temperatures ha ha!

  7. Alan the Brit says:

    Two thoughts spring to mind. One, they may be in a state of shock on hearing that should NuLabour lose the next election (very likely 95% confidence), & that the incoming Conservative governemnt may well privatise them, meaning job cuts, efficiency drives, & making money using their weather preditions, (fat chance), & Two, perhaps they are cooking the books again to show warming where there is cooling. So if you can smell burning, don’t worry, it’s only the books. May you live in interesting times!

  8. the_Butcher says:

    THE RESULTS

    105th Hottest October, 2009.

  9. Lance says:

    Nope, they deleted the data…

  10. Gumby says:

    the dog ate the data

  11. Demesure says:

    @Pamela
    You mean stuck in the gravy train wreck.

  12. Juraj V. says:

    Willy, it was GISTEMP and J. Hansen.
    CRU just lost all raw data for peer-reviewed HadCRUT dataset, used in all IPCC reports :-o

  13. Derek Walton says:

    I have been thinking that it is strange too. For much of the last year though the page which contains the update appears to have a retrospective date. What I mean by that is that I check on days a, b and c to find that the page has not been updated. However, on day f the data is updated, but the ‘end month updated’ section gives date b…..

  14. Sven says:

    My guess is that September 2009 came in top and they want to make sure that it was the case.

    My two “kronor”.

    /Sven

  15. PJB says:

    Here in Canada, the hockey term “stick handling” can be used either as adroit manipulation or as effective evasion. In this case, based on the hockey stick metaphor, take your pick.

  16. Robert Coté says:

    Am I the only one to notice that the Centre’s logo has wavy data bands rising from left to right?

  17. Ron de Haan says:

    Or they have decided to stop making their data public.

  18. TonyB says:

    I live 15 miles away. Shall I knock on their door and say that Anthony Watts would like the up to date information please? I am sure I will get a very friendly reception.

    TonyB

  19. bobby v says:

    not sarcasm – why would it even take 20 days? can’t all those mflops crunch thousands of numbers under a second? is retrieval automated?

  20. Claude Harvey says:

    The result has been delayed in an abundance of caution. Center personnel have slowed their activities because, according to their scientific calculations, in today’s hyper-heated atmosphere wind-on-skin friction at normal speed could cause them to catch fire and burn up.

  21. Paul Coppin says:

    My guess is they had to make a choice between spending the budget on the data, or on the party in Copenhagen. And since the science is settled and there is a consensus and therefore the data doesn’t matter, they decided to spend the money on the party in Copenhagen.

  22. juanslayton says:

    Pamela:

    Attributed to Andrew Jackson: “It’s a *** poor mind can think of but one way to spell a word.”

  23. DaveF says:

    TonyB 08:23:17:

    Yeah, go on Tony. I’ll hold your coat!

  24. Jeroen says:

    Anybody send an email? Any response yet?

  25. wws says:

    Waiting for the Hadcrut data causes me to visualize Ben Stein:

    “Bueller? Bueller? Bueller???”

  26. Gail Combs says:

    The temp has plummeted and they do not want to publish the data before Copenhagen.

    My local temp mean for Oct is 4F lower than 2005. It is interesting to note all the temp date before year 2000 has now been purged from the Raleigh NC site http://www.wunderground.com/weatherstation/WXDailyHistory.asp?ID=raleigh&graphspan=month&month=11&day=2&year=2000

    And Note the dates in the pull down box do not go back to before the year 2000.

    For the city of Sanford NC the dates go back to 1972 but the data has been purged for all years before 2000. http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KTTA/2000/11/2/MonthlyHistory.html

    VVeerrry interstink Looks like someone is doing damage control doesn’t it?

  27. MartinGAtkins says:

    Why should they make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

  28. Yarmy says:

    I live 15 miles away.

    The Exeter centre or the CRU in Norwich? I can cover the latter, but I won’t be in The Fine City until Saturday week.

  29. Henry chance says:

    Worse than expected. The grand computor of all computors over heated. It is hot you know.

    It does take time to delete readings that don’t fit the model and dress up some of the others. Can’t let the data be raw.

  30. JustPassing says:

    You should send them a Christmas Card. and a Pine Cone as a present :)

  31. DaveF (08:38:11) : “Yeah, go on Tony. I’ll hold your coat!”

    Just don’t take them up on their offer of a free tour of the UN building, Tony.

  32. Peter says:

    Does CRU also use GHCN data? That is of course, assuming that information is public. E. M. Smith at his musings of the cheifio blog is part way to proving that the data has been tampered with, and this must have alot of folks shaking in their boots.

  33. Ric Werme says:

    I have it on good authority (i.e. personal speculation) that they’re proactively figuring out how to reply to any critiques of the data that might come from this blog.

  34. Abitbol says:

    Maybe it takes time to torture data ?

  35. Alan the Brit says:

    Thought No 3. Perhaps they’re waiting for all the permissions from all the “owners” of the data they keep telling us isn’t theirs!

  36. well I’ve downloaded all the data for the 20 GISS stations around Yamal / Polar-Urals and done a date-added screenshot save, so those at least are beyond the dog to eat.

    Maybe I’ll do the same for the UK before all I have is the graphs.

  37. Ron de Haan says:

    Politicians More Powerful Than Nature
    Current Global Temperatures Impossible According to IPCC ‘Science’.
    Author Dr. Tim Ball
    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/16460

  38. RR Kampen says:

    They can’t believe the heat in the tropics this time. It is unbelievable. But true.

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/global_monitoring/temperature/tn96745_30.gif

  39. crosspatch says:

    Didn’t they recently lose something like 25% of their funding or something?

  40. Glenn says:

    Phil is just out fishing.

    “Philip D. Jones … is director of the Climatic Research Unit”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Jones_%28climatologist%29

    “The Climate Research Unit came under criticism in 2009 for refusing to release the data used to construct its surface temperature history report. Requests from other researchers and scientists have been denied, and in some cases the authors of the report claimed that the original data no longer exits.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit

    “The Dog Ate Global Warming”
    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM=&w=MA==

  41. Bob Tisdale says:

    For those who missed my second comment over at Lucia’s thread on the slow posting of HADCRUT:
    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/hadcrut-watch/

    On page 31 of the preprint version of Thompson et al (2009), they remark about Hadley Centre SST data, “The SST data corrected for instrument changes in the mid 20th century are expected to become available in 2009, and it will be interesting to see how the corrections affect the time history of global-mean temperatures, particularly in the middle part of the century.”

    Link to Thompson et al (2009) preprint:
    http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/ao/ThompsonPapers/TWJK_JClimate2009_revised.pdf

    Speculation: Maybe they’re busy getting the new dataset and accompanying paper ready and have let HADCRUT slide a few weeks.

  42. AndrewWH says:

    Alan the Brit (07:35:06) :
    If they are only just waking up to the fact that Nu Labour will lose the next election then it only shows just how out of touch with reality they are.

    At the beginning of October (5th IIRC) the BBC were loudly trumpeting the fact that the nighttime temperature was only 0.3C below the record. They forbore to mention when that record was set. I’m pretty sure if any further records had been approached, let alone surpassed, the BBC would have mentioned it, so even though it has been a very mild October in the UK I assume it cannot have been anything too out of the ordinary. Couple this with the early onset deep freeze in the USA and continental Europe and all of a sudden Hadley need a really big rise in the Siberian anomaly to compensate.
    I postulate they are late because they are doing some serious tweaking and rounding up.

  43. Partington says:

    Yarmy (08:55:08) :
    I live 15 miles away.
    The Exeter centre or the CRU in Norwich? I can cover the latter, but I won’t be in The Fine City until Saturday week.

    Yarmy, I visited Norwich recently, a fine city indeed, but what about that weather monitoring station right in the middle by one of the busiest streets. Thought about all the UHI there. Do you know where I mean?

  44. Simon says:

    Surely the reason for not posting any information is that they have all set off walking to Copenhagen because I can’t believe that they would be flying!!!

  45. Bobn says:

    Isn’t it the case that the GISTEMP release used to be a lot quicker until all the kerfuffle over the October 2008 error was made? Then “jobsworth” style “checks and procedures” had to be introduced for the sake of PR.

    Id rather have the data released early preliminary style than held back for weeks.

  46. Invariant says:

    Not so in Norway! Our Met office is very efficient and they have already published the data for October which is 1.8 C below the normal.

    http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=y&u=http://met.no/%3Fmodule%3DArticles;action%3DArticle.publicShow;ID%3D1490&sl=no&tl=en&history_state0=

    Sure, this does not imply any global warming, but they decided to publish the data anyway…

  47. P Gosselin says:

    Why bother waiting for a result that was produced by data that cannot be verified?
    Timing is everything. They’re holding back for some impact reason.

  48. Mike Lorrey says:

    Hadley Center is happy to report Britain has had its warmest October on record due to overuse of the MetOffice’s supercomputer creating the largest urban heat island effect ever seen…

  49. Grumbler says:

    “wws (08:45:19) :

    Waiting for the Hadcrut data causes me to visualize Ben Stein:

    “Bueller? Bueller? Bueller???” ”

    I still mumble ‘Bueller, Bueller, anyone?’ whilst trying get a response from some students :-)

    cheers David

  50. Douglas DC says:

    “when is smokin’ it’s cookin’-when it’s black it’s done.”-Burns Bailey,old time NE Oregon
    Cowboy.
    Looks like Burns’ cow camp cooking here…
    Smells like something else from a cow….

  51. Ron de Haan says:

    Surprising:
    NOAA site states:
    “It has been thought that an increase in carbon dioxide will lead to global warming. While carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing over the past 100 years, there is no evidence that it is causing an increase in global temperatures”.

    “In 1997, NASA reported global temperature measurements of the Earth’s lower atmosphere obtained from satellites revealed no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. In fact, the trend appeared to be a decrease in actual temperature. In 2007, NASA data showed that one-half of the ten warmest years occurred in the 1930’s with 1934 (tied with 2006) as the warmest years on record. (NASA data October 23, 2007 from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt)”

    “The 1930s through the 1950s were clearly warmer than the 1960s and 1970s. If carbon dioxide had been the cause then the warmest years would have understandably been in the most recent years. But that is not the case”.

    “The largest differences in the satellite temperature data were not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño”.

    “The behavior of the atmosphere is extremely complex. Therefore, discovering the validity of global warming is complex as well. How much effect will the increase in carbon dioxide will have is unclear or even if we recognize the effects of any increase”.
    http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/atmos/ll_gas.htm

  52. Neil Hampshire says:

    HadSST2 issued back on 5th.Oct. shows a sharp reduction for September

    0.275 0.220 0.245 0.307 0.355 0.500 0.511 0.496 0.360

    Perhaps HadCRUT3 is also showing a reduction. This would not be welcome

  53. Rick K says:

    Maybe they’re busy playing hockey!

  54. Glenn says:

    What’s so hard and taking so long about cooking the books? How many CRUs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/

  55. rbateman says:

    Maybe the data prediction output was too outrageous even for HadCrut.
    So they had to shut the thing off and go digging through the code to find out why the contraption had November temperatures high enough to melt lead.

  56. rbateman says:

    And maybe there are 2 sets of predictions: One for the agenda and the real one.
    Surely they know what is actually happening under their noses.
    So, if the real prediction is so austerely cold that it shocks even them, they would be in quite the fix over whether to sound the alarm or not.

  57. Tenuc says:

    Ron de Haan (09:30:24) :
    “Politicians More Powerful Than Nature
    Current Global Temperatures Impossible According to IPCC ‘Science’.
    Author Dr. Tim Ball
    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/16460

    Reply: Thanks for the link Ron, this is an excellent article which destroys the CAGW hypothesis. The last two of my friends who are still unsure will get a copy tonight.

    AndrewWH (09:43:30) :
    “…October in the UK I assume it cannot have been anything too out of the ordinary….”

    Reply: Back in the ’70’s Indian Summers were quite common and temps were much higher than we’ve seen this year. Been too many clouds around for it to get really hot.

  58. Pearland Aggie says:

    Oh my, David Hathaway admits he was wrong and Leif was right….WOW

    David Hathaway: Mea Culpa
    http://solarscience.auditblogs.com/2009/10/31/david-hathaway-mea-culpa/

    “We had just previously gone through three or four sunspot cycles that had been only ten years long each, so for the one in 1996 to 2006, it seemed like a reasonable assumption. But as we now know, we were off by at least two years. And if we take conditions on the sun now, it’s a completely different story. The conditions now – using even that same technique from 2006 – says that the next sunspot cycle is going to be half what we thought it was back in 2006.

    Another big prediction in 2006 was based on a dynamo model – a model for how the sun produces magnetic fields – and it suggested a huge cycle.

    But there also were people back at that time saying otherwise. A group of colleagues led by Leif Svalgaard, Ph.D., were looking at the sun’s polar fields and saying even at that point, the sun’s polar fields were significantly weaker than they had been before and those scientists back then predicted it was going to be a small cycle.”

  59. NC says:

    Ron De Haan I went to the NOAA site you mention but then they blew it with this…

    Fast Facts
    To see the full effect of a greenhouse effect, look to the planet Venus. The atmosphere of Venus consists of 96% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen, with the remaining amount, less than 1%, of other gasses.

    The carbon dioxide atmosphere has allowed the temperature of the surface to exceed 900°F (482°C). This is hot enough to melt lead. Space craft that have successfully landed on venus, despite being well protected, have lasted only about an hour in the excessive heat and crushing pressure.

    What they left out is Venus being closer to the sun than earth, atmospheric pressure being 96 times higher I believe, which also contributes to temperature rise. Why did they not use mars as an example it also has about a 96% C02 composition as Venus but has very low temperatures, being farther from the sun than earth is one factor, but the main point it has only 1% of the atmospheric pressure of earth, low pressure low temperature. Cherrypicking by NOAA.

    Am I correct on this?

  60. Pascvaks says:

    No doubt they’ve started a new “public release policy” and ONLY THOSE FEW WHO APPRECIATE THEIR WORK WILL HENSEFORTH BE PROVIDED AN ENCODED COPY.

  61. Ecotretas says:

    I believe they are thinking in relocating to Portugal. It’s been quite warm here, and since I’ve liked it, they would love it…
    Ecotretas

  62. kim says:

    Yep, the late great Manchester wizard guitarist Peter Bocking, AKA PUK, called it a ‘superconfuser’.
    ================================

  63. John Mason says:

    The conspiracy side of me wonders if they are going to delay any cooling data till after Copenhagen.

  64. George E. Smith says:

    Well while they are fiddling with the numbers; it is a good time to note that the DMI temperature finally got going again in the downward crash mode. Belated maybe; but at least it is doing what it usually does about this time of the year.

    And in response (maybe) the JAXA ice finally escaped the clutches of the 2007 limit case. Well what the heck; it’s all back in the region where it can be quite variable, and quite normal; 2009 was a big improvement over 2008.

    Same time, same station next year !

  65. Michael D Smith says:

    Is there way to turn off the annoying wordpress prefix? Example: in one of the links above, I click on it, it takes me here:

    http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com&url=htt p://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/global_monitoring/temperature/tn96745_30.gif

    Where only the last half of the URL is correct. Consequently, any link I click on gets blocked… Is this a “feature”? Thanks.

  66. Juraj V. says:

    Ron de Haan
    Looks like someone hacked their website. Actually, someone pointed this to G. Schmidt on RC a week ago, and he replied it is unacceptable and he will act.

    Bob Tisdale

    I am very interesting what they will come with. Change in SST dataset will affect all global temperature datasets. My theory is, that the 0.3 deg C down step by Folland et al was engineered to get warming 1900-1945, then step down, slow warming 1945-1978 and steep warming 1978-2000s. So there is warming during the whole 20th century with no inconvenient cooling. Single drop is not as visible.
    I am curious, whether SSTs in 50ties will not be even warmer than in 40ties.
    Re FTWJK_JClimate2009_revised.pdf – that chart named “The global-mean response to volcanic eruptions” is interesting, since it attributes (volcano cooling) effect of 1W/m2 to temperature change 0.1K. Doubling of CO2 without any feedbacks should yield, how much? 4W/m2?

  67. PJB says:

    Maybe the figures are late because their computer “froze”. Undoubtedly the result of local cooling which is an integral part of global warming….until the entire planet is the locale…

  68. Richard says:

    RR Kampen (09:31:40) : They can’t believe the heat in the tropics this time. It is unbelievable. But true.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/global_monitoring/temperature/tn96745_30.gif

    Now that is truly unbelievable. Specially for the AGW hypothesis. Isnt it NOT supposed to heat up in the equator and heat up in the higher latitudes if it is due to CO2? But this is just the opposite! Unbelievable!

    Double, double toil and trouble, fire burn, and cauldron bubble! they are cooking the books – takes time you know…

  69. Richard says:

    Ron de Haan (10:24:08) : and NC (11:27:35) : Yes NC you are correct. Your facts are dead right.

    It is NOT Cherry picking by NOAA. It is outright misrepresenting the cause.

    The reason why Venus had runaway global warming is that:

    1. They have 96% CO2 compared to our 0.03% (33,100 times more percentage wise than us)
    2. And this is the main reason – they are 28% closer to the sun than us (or we are 38% further)

    As you pointed out Mars with 96% CO2, or for that matter Jupiter Saturn etc with their huge atmospheres, being much further from the SUN have no runaway global warming.

    We are at the Goldilocks distance from the Sun – just right.

  70. Gene Nemetz says:

    Gumby (07:44:36) :

    the dog ate the data

    It was a bear trying to get a better winter coat for the extra cold winter hibernation he senses is coming.

  71. TonyB says:

    AndrewWH (09:43:30) :
    “…October in the UK I assume it cannot have been anything too out of the ordinary….”

    Oct mean was 11.6C, nothing too special but pleasantly warm and a very nice month.

    However October very well illustrated the need to take into account weather conditions, rather than that anything warm is automatically due to AGW. For a large part of October we in the UK had a very strong blast of warm air straight from the tropics, brought on a persistent South or South Westerly wind.

    It was so noticeable even the Weather forecasters noted it in their Tv appearances. We neglect to look for the effects of persistent weather patterns/position of the jet stream when seeking more complicated and unlikely answers -including Co2.

    tonyb

  72. Juraj V. says:

    NC (11:27:35) :

    What they left out is Venus being closer to the sun than earth, atmospheric pressure being 96 times higher I believe, which also contributes to temperature rise. Why did they not use mars as an example it also has about a 96% C02 composition as Venus but has very low temperatures, being farther from the sun than earth is one factor, but the main point it has only 1% of the atmospheric pressure of earth, low pressure low temperature. Cherrypicking by NOAA.
    Am I correct on this?

    Exactly. I saw a comparison of planets in our solar system, where their temperature was shown as function of distance from the Sun and their atmospheric pressure. It did not depend at all what the atmosphere was composed of, they were pretty in line and Earth was no outlier either.

  73. Gene Nemetz says:

    Demesure (07:47:14) :

    @Pamela
    You mean stuck in the gravy train wreck.

    Good one.

  74. Gene Nemetz says:

    They were occupied at the Peirs Corbyn meeting trying to figure how they lost all those bets. ;-)

  75. Gene Nemetz says:

    MartinGAtkins (08:50:45) :

    Why should they make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

    Excellent!!

  76. Frank K. says:

    George E. Smith (11:54:35) :

    “Same time, same station next year !”

    Yup, next May, tune in for the 2010 season of the “Arctic Ice Follies,” starring Mark “the Arctic is screaming” Serreze and Walt Meier of the NSIDC, and sponsored by the IPCC, bringing you the best in AGW alarmism for over twenty years…

  77. Gene Nemetz says:

    Lucy Skywalker (09:27:58) :

    so those at least are beyond the dog to eat.

    But what about the bears? You’d be astonished what a bear will do to get food.

  78. enduser says:

    Ron de Haan (10:24:08) :

    Surprising:
    NOAA site states:
    “It has been thought that an increase in carbon dioxide will lead to global warming. While carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing over the past 100 years, there is no evidence that it is causing an increase in global temperatures”.
    _________________________________

    What?!
    Link please.

  79. Ed Scott says:

    Current Global Temperatures Impossible According to IPCC ‘Science’.
    By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, November 2, 2009
    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/16460

  80. Ed Scott says:

    An apocalypse is a “revelation” or a “disclosure,” not a “disaster.” Well, it could be a disaster for the UN/IPCC and Algore, when the global lie and dishonesty of AGW, which they perpetuate, is revealed/disclosed.

    May the apocalypse succeed.
    ————————————————————-
    The Eco-Apocalypse Craze
    by Merv Bendle

    November 2, 2009

    High Priest of the Eco-Apocalypse

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/the-eco-apocalypse-craze

    ————————————————————-
    Controlfreakonomics!
    by John Izzard

    November 2, 2009

    It isn’t easy being green

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/controlfreakonomics

  81. Jon-Anders Grannes says:

    If what we observe on the Sun and the work to validate much of the “science” that has been made up to support UNFCCC continues it is just a matter of time before the UNFCCC is technically dead.
    So they are running out of time and they are getting desperate?

  82. SandyInDerby says:

    This may be off topic but interesting as this is a mainstream newspaper in Scotland. Also there are comments by some names who haven’t been seen here for a while! Perhaps some of the experts here could post in support?

    http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/opinion/Richard-Courtney-Biblical-lessons-lost.5747333.jp

  83. Ric Werme says:

    enduser (13:52:04) :

    Ron de Haan (10:24:08) :

    Surprising:
    NOAA site states:
    “It has been thought that an increase in carbon dioxide will lead to global warming. While carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing over the past 100 years, there is no evidence that it is causing an increase in global temperatures”.
    _________________________________

    What?!
    Link please.

    It was at the bottom of his comment:

    http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/atmos/ll_gas.htm

    This is the wrong place to bring this up – the Tips and Notes article (see the
    top of any WUWT page) is the right place.

  84. vg says:

    Pearland: Wunderbar, great so now I am prepared to listen to Hathaway. You see all they have to do is admit to the error and they regain trust and super credibility once again. Its got NOTHING to do with pro or anti AGW. Snip if editorializing too much

  85. vg says:

    BTW i am getting truly sick and tired of this link appearing everytime you look at any climate (pro or anti agw)
    http://www.america.gov/climate_change.html?gclid=CPfU9a2r7Z0CFRtO2godDQQLMg
    can anything be done to stop it?

  86. vg says:

    re previous climate site

  87. vg says:

    copy this quickly before its pulled hahahah
    http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/atmos/ll_gas.htm

  88. Jordan says:

    “Didn’t they recently lose something like 25% of their funding or something?”

    Bang goes the 2 days per month set aside for quality control.

  89. Ian Cooper says:

    NIWA (National Institute of Air & Water) in New Zealand weren’t slow out of the blocks in announcing that this October was the coldest recorded here since 1945.
    http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/coldest-october-since-1945-in-nz-3107957

    1.5 degrees C below the October average for the country. This in a year with the record lowest May temperatures. In fact we have had a double peak of cold in the past seven months. Very cold from May through to July, mild in August, and back to cold and colder in September-October.

    By my own (unfortunately incomplete) records covering the period 1980-2009 this year has been the record breaker in the number of physical ground frosts, i.e. ice on the ground, at my altitude of only 15 metres above sea level. the 34 frosts recorded is 25% higher than the previous record holders of 1982 and 1989.

    The most snowfalls for the mountains in my vicinity (the Tararua and Ruahine Ranges, average height 1500m or 5,000 ft), 29 so far with still the possibility of more to come. The highest weighted aggregate of snow based upon a density and altitude scale that I have worked out to quantify this aspect. This years total of 129 so far beats out 2008 with 111 points as the previous record holder for the the past three decades.

    People rightly say that weather is not climate, but a large number of weather events of a similar kind, in this case cold related, are very good climate indicators, in alliance with the temperature record. I guess that I am just one of those people who like to see the evidence for myself. Living in a rural situation for the whole of the period that I have been recording these natural weather related events around me has led me to two conclusions. 1. is the obvious variablity of these climate indicators in the period, and 2. the trend lately has been towards more colder events dominating.

    As to the future, all I can say from my own observations is that I would expect the variability to continue as usual, but as for a long term trend I feel that the thirty year data base is far too short to come to any meaningful conclusions, but it sure is fascinating for me to look at my numbers and compare them with various global SST’s, or polar ice sheet estimates over the same period.

    Cheers

    Coops

  90. David says:

    “Fast Facts
    To see the full effect of a greenhouse effect, look to the planet Venus. The atmosphere of Venus consists of 96% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen, with the remaining amount, less than 1%, of other gasses.

    The carbon dioxide atmosphere has allowed the temperature of the surface to exceed 900°F (482°C). This is hot enough to melt lead. Space craft that have successfully landed on venus, despite being well protected, have lasted only about an hour in the excessive heat and crushing pressure.” From De Haan’s link to NASA.

    Really?! CO2 did it? It wasn’t the proximity to the sun? Or the atmospheric pressure that crushes spacecraft? Atmospheric pressure is an interesting tack. I wonder if Earth’s temperature fluctuates on any reasonable level with the expansion/contraction of Earth’s atmosphere.

  91. Aligner says:

    I smell a rat. Something is going down here.

  92. crosspatch says:

    Alinger:

    Yeah, something’s fishy here:

    Dr Schmidt wishes us to point out that he is not “involved” in Dr Hansen’ s GISS temperature record …

    I am of course happy to publish the correction he asked for, but I am intrigued that Dr Schmidt should want to dissociate himself from this increasingly controversial source of temperature figures.

    Like others, it seems I was misled by the fact that twice in the past two years, when GISS has come under fire for publishing seriously inaccurate data, it was Dr Schmidt who acted as its public spokesman. The first was in 2007, when Dr Hansen’s data was revealed to have been systematically “adjusted” to show recent temperatures as higher than those reported by the other three official sources. This embarrassing business, which resulted in GISS having to revise its figures, was exposed by two science blogs, Watts Up With That, run by Anthony Watts, and Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit.

    The second intervention came this time last year, when GISS had startlingly shown the previous month as the hottest October on record. The same two expert blogs revealed, as the reason for this improbable spike, that GISS had reproduced many of its September figures for two months running. Dr Schmidt may have had no responsibility for this error, but it was he who was wheeled on to explain this hilarious blunder to the world – with the somewhat curious plea that one of the four official sources relied on by the IPCC did not have sufficient resources to maintain proper quality control on its data.

    Why would Schmidt suddenly want to put distance between himself and GISS? Have they discovered some major problem with GISSTemp or is Hansen possibly on the way out due to his “activism” and Schmidt wants to make it known he has no part of it?

    Who knows but this sure seems interesting that Schmidt has gone from Cheerleader in Chief to “I am not involved”.

  93. Telboy says:

    O/T, but following SandyinDerby (15:09:26)

    This quote from Richard Courtney puts the case against AGW very succinctly-

    “Some people still promote the hypothesis, for several reasons (personal financial gain, protection of their career histories and futures, political opportunism). But support of science cannot be one such motive, because science denies the hypothesis.”

    Possible quote of the week?

  94. Aligner says:

    Monbiot: see here

    There is no point in denying it: we’re losing …

    Fascinating, not a hint of CH4 ratcheting/face saving here yet. But eye’s left … here and now here and here. Hmm? Looks suspiciously like the US has pretty much already pulled out of the train wreck. Either that or open season on green shirts has started early this year :-). A Hansen sideways manoeuvre next up maybe? Anyone with a different perspective?

  95. John Silver says:

    The Swedish numbers are out: -2 C (3.6 F) to -3 C (5.4 F) lower than the reference period 1961-1990.

    http://mobil.svt.se/2.52865/1.1752573/oktober_2009?lid=puff_1675210&lpos=extra_0

    Note the curiosity of the span between lowest to highest temperature: 37.8 C (100 F)

  96. Bulldust says:

    I am picturing the scene with HAL9000… I think Deep Black has become sentient and realised that the Met Office is humanity’s own worst enemy and locked them out in the cold. I had a demotivational poster featuring Hal9000 saying “Well, tell whoever it is that I can’t accept the AGW theory without proof.” Sadly I can’t upload images from here.

    Also Alan the Brit (07:35:06) :
    Referring to the rabble as NuLabor amuses me down on the bottom end as we have an area called the Nullabor:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullarbor_Plain
    A vast area spanning between Western Australia and South Australia on the southern coastline which features nothing… it is vast, desolate and treeless (Nullabor being contrived from the Latin for “no trees”). Actually it does have an outstanding feature… it has a massive and awe inspiring cliff into the Southern Ocean which makes one feel like one is at the edge of the world… suitable launch pad for AGW lemmings I would say:
    http://www.ceduna.net/webdata/resources/images/nullarbor_cliffs_.jpg

  97. Phil says:

    crosspatch (16:46:06) :

    Alinger:

    Yeah, something’s fishy here:

    Dr Schmidt wishes us to point out that he is not “involved” in Dr Hansen’ s GISS temperature record …

    I am of course happy to publish the correction he asked for, but I am intrigued that Dr Schmidt should want to dissociate himself from this increasingly controversial source of temperature figures.

    Like others, it seems I was misled by the fact that twice in the past two years, when GISS has come under fire for publishing seriously inaccurate data, it was Dr Schmidt who acted as its public spokesman. The first was in 2007, when Dr Hansen’s data was revealed to have been systematically “adjusted” to show recent temperatures as higher than those reported by the other three official sources. This embarrassing business, which resulted in GISS having to revise its figures, was exposed by two science blogs, Watts Up With That, run by Anthony Watts, and Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit.

    The second intervention came this time last year, when GISS had startlingly shown the previous month as the hottest October on record. The same two expert blogs revealed, as the reason for this improbable spike, that GISS had reproduced many of its September figures for two months running. Dr Schmidt may have had no responsibility for this error, but it was he who was wheeled on to explain this hilarious blunder to the world – with the somewhat curious plea that one of the four official sources relied on by the IPCC did not have sufficient resources to maintain proper quality control on its data.

    Why would Schmidt suddenly want to put distance between himself and GISS? Have they discovered some major problem with GISSTemp or is Hansen possibly on the way out due to his “activism” and Schmidt wants to make it known he has no part of it?

    Who knows but this sure seems interesting that Schmidt has gone from Cheerleader in Chief to “I am not involved”.

    Make that Cheerleader in Chiefio.

  98. jae says:

    Apologies if I’m repeating a previous post (don’t have time to read all), but the explanation is Simple: the morons probablylost the data, AGAIN! Just WHO has any faith in HADCRUT anymore?

  99. GP says:

    I expect the data is stuck in a Royal Mail sorting office somewhere.

    (For those of you not in the UK you may like to know that some of our postal workers are undertaking a series of strikes which is likely to be causing some problems with snail mail.)

    They should have stuck with using pigeons.

  100. Pamela Gray says:

    What if all the sensors happened to be located, all 126 or however many they use now, on rather conservative soil (or liberal soil for that matter) and the volunteer folks have rather suddenly “got it” and all decided to just shut the shutters and thumb their noses at whatshisname? I have been thinking that the backyards where all these screens are located look a lot like the backyards here in Wallowa County, tucked away up in the NE corner of Oregon. Has there possibly been a quiet rebellion and all they are left with are “really out there” temperature gauges monitored by potheads?

    And this brings up a point about the fragile nature of the gauge network. What if we the people, the keepers of the sensors, just decided to get off this silly train?

  101. terry the rat says:

    The Met Office is not in fear of privatisation because it ‘failed’ to pass the Governments own ” Commercial Audit ” recently. ie it does not generate sufficient income. I expect its staff are secretly quite pleased.
    On a local level, the Met Office signally failed to forcast Englands very pleasant 6 week Indian Summer, indeed it spent most of it telling us it was going to end ‘tomorrow’.
    They are so obsessed with Climate Change that they have forgotten to do what we pay them for which is to tell us what the weather is going to be like for the next couple of days.

  102. SamG says:

    Pamela Gray

    Or I could say it this way:

    May they’re still stuck in that car wreck?

    Why did you change it, you bothered to read about Anthony’s interests?

    ;-)

  103. Barry Foster says:

    I often email the Met Office – just to let them know they’re wrong. He he. Anyway, I contacted them about the September data a couple of weeks ago. This was the reply:

    “We have been in contact with our Climate Monitoring and Research Scientist. He has advised we are still waiting for some of the land temperature data to be received. Once we have the complete data sets this will be published. Hopefully the missing data will arrive with in the next week.”

  104. Mark Young says:

    Bulldust (18:19:47)

    “I’m sorry, Phil. I’m afraid I can’t do that…”

    :D

  105. steven says:

    I see nothing odd in Gavin Schmidt pointing out that he is not involved in the production of the GISS temperature record. If I were not involved in a project I would be inclined to point that out also regardless of my level of confidence in the product.

  106. Pascvaks says:

    New?
    “A substantial proportion of the September CLIMAT monthly land station summary report data that was sent over the GTS (Global Telecommunication System) was obviously incorrect. For the past few weeks we have been liaising with the sources to gain a version that was correct. As this issue affects a substantial portion of the globe we are not in a position to release a ‘global’ estimate. Nor will we do so until we are satisfied that an adequate amount of verified data is present.”

    Found at link: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/index.html

  107. Rob Vermeulen says:

    IMHO they’re just double-checking the figures. Publishing results with a scientific value is not like producing a tv series or publishing some random news on blogs. There’s hard work involoved. In fact, I would tend to trust “slow” indicators better than “rapidly published” ones.

  108. Beth Cooper says:

    Look, they’ve been spending a lot of time at the vets with the dog. Must have been something he ate.

  109. kim says:

    Well, between Barry Foster @ 4:53:44 and Pascvacs @ 6:17:20 there is an obvious contradiction.

    Well, the report is late; obviously something is out of the routine. Why would reports from a long running network be delayed? What was ‘obviously wrong’ about what was initially received? Why should it take this long to get ‘correct’ information?

    Questions, questions. There is something rotten in HadCru, and I can smell it all the way over here.
    ===================================

  110. GP says:

    Rob Vermeulen (06:24:44) :

    “IMHO they’re just double-checking the figures.”

    I suspect that is correct and may be a routine they have become more sensitive to after the problems last year around this time. The word ‘obvious’ in [b]Pascvaks (06:17:20) : [/b] link
    suggests that someone is at least thinking about the input carefully rather than glancing at it before processing. At least I hope it does.

    So …. this ‘obviously incorrect’ data …. I wonder what it was that was incorrect about it?

  111. Cold Lynx says:

    I cant figure out how the amount of sea ice change average sea temperature in HadSST2.
    If there is less ice and more open sea would that probably be close to freezing temperature and probably show a lower average Ice free temperature. It the water freeze will that probably be showing a higher average temperature of the unfrozen water.
    But I cant find the gridding calculation for open water. Anyone out there that have checked the HadSST2 calculation for open sea?

  112. boxman says:

    “copy this quickly before its pulled hahahah
    http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/atmos/ll_gas.htm

    They have already pulled it. Luckily i took a screengrab last night.

  113. dougie says:

    Phil (18:30:42) :

    i think you may be spot on with your last line.
    for anyone not aware of Chiefio’s work on this, visit
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/category/agw-and-gistemp-issues/

  114. Gita Kumari bist says:

    Lucky,

  115. E.M.Smith says:

    Pamela Gray (20:59:44) :
    What if all the sensors happened to be located, all 126 or however many they use now,

    It’s 136. From:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/ghcn-california-on-the-beach-who-needs-snow/

    Would You Believe a Little Over 2 Thermometers Per State?
    And no, that is not a “Maxwell Smart” imitation.

    My “by years” tool told me there were 136 active thermometer records in the U.S.A. in 2008. For the whole thing. Including Alaska and Hawaii. But in fairness, Hawaii got three thermometers, all at airports.

    And this brings up a point about the fragile nature of the gauge network. What if we the people, the keepers of the sensors, just decided to get off this silly train?

    While I loved your imagery, the reality looks to be far more dull, and far more damaging.

    GIStemp gets it’s “raw” input data from 2 sources. One is the USHCN – the US thermometers that Anthony et. al. are so focused on. These are all still in use and still being used to forecast weather. The data flows, via NOAA, into a publicly available data set. Unfortunately, NOAA changed the data format to something called Version 2 or USHCN.v2 and when they did that, GIStemp declined to do any maintenance programming to download the new USHCN.v2 file with all the new temperature readings in it. So US data ‘cuts off’ from USHCN at that point in time.

    The US data also flowed in via the GHCN, the Global thermometer network, but after a conversion from F to C and a few other changes in how it is fudged. Fine you say?

    Well, not quite…

    It seems that at about the same time, GHCN decided to drop all but 136 US thermometers (leaving California with NONE in the cold snowy parts: we have 4, one in SFO and 3 near the beach in So.Cal: LA, San Diego, Santa Maria). Kind of hard to get anything OTHER than record heat when you do that…

    So every single temperature anomaly reported for the USA since 2007 is flat out bogus.

    Every
    Single
    One.

    Why? Who knows. You might suspect a similar failure to follow the USHCN data format change; but then you would have to explain the 136 that do get in to GHCN somehow…

    There was a World Meteorology agency of some sort calling for a Global Climate system about 1990 and it’s possible that everyone just hopped on the bandwagon of picking a couple of hundred “good thermometers” for each continent and didn’t bother to think through that this would completely break GIStemp. (And, I suspect, Hadley. They must get their input from somewhere, and if not GHCN, then where? Hmmm?)

    I’ve been exploring the degree of damage to the GHCN data set and found great deletions scattered all over the world. Many focus on a date near 1990. The end result of it is little thing, like:

    Japan has no thermometers above 300 meters. Nope, not a one. It’s as flat as Kansas as far as GHCN is concerned.

    93% of the thermometers in the USA are ignored. If you want their data, you have to “go fish” in the USHCN.v2 pool on your own.

    Australian thermometers are migrating to the northern beaches.

    And in New Zealand, and “Inconvenient Island” (Campbell Island) located down near the polar zone was deleted, giving the Kiwi data set a nice lift and a good shot of temperature tonic. If you take the record out of the past (which GHCN does not do…) so that you have a stable composite instrument to measure with, New Zealand is not warming. Such power in one little Island…

    and there is more. But there is also some good news.

    When you look at the bits that have not been molested, like Argentina, you find that it isn’t warming. All the parts of North and South America that have not had significant thermometer deletions show stable temperatures.

    The Pacific Ocean (minus Australia and New Zealand, that have been molested) shows no warming at all to speak of. Nice stable temps with a bit of a cyclical roll that I think is the PDO flip flop flipping.

    I’ve done an analysis of every continent, most major countries by land area, and a couple of minor places and links to them are here:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/

    which also has directions on how to download the data and includes, near the bottom, the source code for the software to do a lot of this yourself.

    So what do I think happened with the Hadley data (this time…)? I think it was likely one of two things:

    1) It showed the world really IS getting cold and they just could not believe it. (I think this is unlikely, given the “cooked” state of GHCN).

    2) It showed things like the bogus 115 year record heat in California and maybe, just maybe, they realized that this was “A Whopper Too Far” to cross…

    I’d bet my money on #2. I would speculate they are using GHCN data, and that they have just started to have the lag from 2007 that most averaging type adjustments will put into a series wear off. This would result in unbelievable warming spikes (such as in California) and they are probably trying to “figure out what is wrong”. Well, it only took me about a half a year, so give them a while… But make sure they keep the dog on a tether and his bowl full of kibble. We don’t need any more Hadley being “The Dogs Lunch”, now do we …

    And for those who have found what I’m doing worthy of mention to others: Thanks! It makes it worth while…

    Now what I’m left to ponder is this:

    With GIStemp (marginal to begin with) completely broken now due to the USHCN.v2 breakage and GHCN ‘thermometer mass dying”;

    With Hadley being “The Dogs Lunch”;

    With satellites being too short a history to use and calibrated against what again? Oh, perhaps the land series from Nasa and … oh deary me can i get back later….

    Exactly WHAT temperature series is there to use to make any statements about the climate or current trends of temperatures?

    I think I’ll look out the window and ask the TV Weather Man …

  116. kim says:

    Ah, it’s Hansen, in the temperature record, with a memory hole machine. Let the inquest begin.

    And thanks, E.M. Very impressive and useful work.
    ====================================

  117. MarkE says:

    As Nigel, now Lord, Lawson (former UK Chancellor of the Exchequer = Finance minister) once said, it always takes longer to add them up when the numbers are giving you bad news. Which makes you wonder what the data will tell us when it is released.

  118. Stoic says:

    MarkE (06:47:40) :

    Your Nigel Lawson quote: “…it always takes longer to add them up when the numbers are giving you bad news.”

    Which would be the bad news, cooling or warming?

  119. Patrik says:

    It’s out now:
    2009/09 0.457 0.473 0.442 0.649 0.266 0.457 0.451 0.650 0.265 0.650 0.265

  120. Pamela Gray says:

    Something seems funny with those numbers at the end. What are the chances of this series at the end happening as a repeating identical pattern?

  121. Glenn says:

    Pamela Gray (07:55:43) :

    Something seems funny with those numbers at the end. What are the chances of this series at the end happening as a repeating identical pattern?

    Good, since they’re for September, the ninth number after the date. Patrik must have had problems pasting, or he’s having a little joke at HadCrut’s expense.

  122. Cold Lynx says:

    With 3 decimals?
    0.000

  123. Stu says:

    Hmmm, if you lot don’t trust the data anyway, why do you want it so bad?

  124. Stu says:

    Patrick – those are not the figures from the source I usually go to for those figures: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

    Which don’t have the Sept data yet and the year up to August is given as

    2009 0.384 0.364 0.371 0.415 0.407 0.499 0.498 0.532

    Where the heck are your figures from?

Comments are closed.