The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.
The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.
The Met Office database is one of three main sources of temperature data analysis on which the UN’s main climate change science body relies for its assessment that global warming is a serious danger to the world. This assessment is the basis for next week’s climate change talks in Copenhagen aimed at cutting CO2 emissions.
The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.
The Met Office works closely with the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), which is being investigated after e-mails written by its director, Phil Jones, appeared to show an attempt to manipulate temperature data and block alternative scientific views.
The Met Office’s published data showing a warming trend draws heavily on CRU analysis. CRU supplied all the land temperature data to the Met Office, which added this to its own analysis of sea temperature data.
Since the stolen e-mails were published, the chief executive of the Met Office has written to national meteorological offices in 188 countries asking their permission to release the raw data that they collected from their weather stations.
The Met Office is confident that its analysis will eventually be shown to be correct. However, it says it wants to create a new and fully open method of analysing temperature data.
The development will add to fears that influential sceptics in other countries, including the US and Australia, are using the controversy to put pressure on leaders to resist making ambitious deals for cutting CO2.
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change admitted yesterday that it needed to consider the full implications of the e-mails and whether they cast doubt on any of the evidence for man-made global warming.
========
“influential sceptics in other countries” I wonder who that could be?
I applaud the open process though.
So…The MET has the original data – right? HUMMMMM…me thinks I smell a rotten fish….
Mike
How could our governments make any policy on climate alarmism when so much has been revealed. Copenhagen seems like a waste of time. And how will we know that the new data will be both authentic and unadjusted. I would have thought a panel of experts from BOTH sides of the debate overseeing the task would help restore credibility and authenticity to the data – as a suggestion Steve Mc and Anthony Watts
I believe the whole thing needs to be done over again, by a completely different group of people. And all of the data, methods, and programs have to be public, for anyone to examine and verify, just like an open source project.
“The Met Office is confident that its analysis will eventually be shown to be correct. However, it says it wants to create a new and fully open method of analysing temperature data.”
E.M. Smith could probably toss in a few helpful pointers ;o)
Hey, I’m willing to do my part. If NOAA can come up with the jpegs of the original forms, I’ll be happy to sift through my own area.
Some parts of the US go all the way back to the Dalton and beyond.
With the Sun acting up the way it is, it’s better to know all there is to know than to sit idly by while getting run over.
REPLY: you can look at the B91 forms in PDF form from the observer here:
http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/coop/coop.html
Choose California then Weaverville RS – Anthony
How do they know that they analysis will take three years? Why not two? Why not four?
Frankly, these guys are so vested in AGW ($$$) that we still have every reason to doubt the sincerity of this “do-over.” If they are starting the “do-over” with preconceived notions about CO2 and what they think the temperatures should look like, what’s the point?
This thing reeks of white-wash.
twawki (20:02:09) :
Copenhagen needs a SnowCheck, I mean a raincheck.
Yeah, I agree. What is the point in painting the town red when the bottle is empty?
Stay home, Obama, you got enough places to go, people to see and things to do as it is.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out its (drumroll) Worse Than We Thought.
So does this mean back to square one for the whole of climate science? And will that translate into, back to the drawing board as to what to do about the climate change? Does that not mean putting on hold any policies based on the previous, now found to be faulty data. What step of reason have I missed? If I have missed none, then why are our politicians proceeding as if? Finally, will we sit back and let them proceed?
“The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.” You’d think the government would be happy to be relieved of the huge expense of having to combat ‘global warming.’ Or were they just planning to take the money and make soothing noises.
This work should be overseen by a board comprised of a variety of climate scientists with a range of opinion from ardent Alarmist to questioning skeptic. Only then can we trust that the results are as valid as they can be. As part of this exercise, a ‘red’ view as well as a ‘blue’ view should be presented to represent the range of intepretation as to what temperatures have actually done over the last 150 years. They should make Steve McIntyre or Anthony Watts chairman!
I completely agree with the comments by James Hastings-Trew. CRU is the last institution that should be entrusted to perform a “do-over.” Surrender hen-house keys to fox. Repeat scandal.
James dead is on the money about open source.
This newspaper writer needs to take Science101 before writing on the topic. Science can’t state anything with absolute certainty, ever. The re-re-re-re-re analysis of this data will just raise our certainty from 99.0% to 99.05%.
Canada’s Globe&Mail is now giving a more balanced though still biased report. It takes awhile before they shift from stolen e-mails to possibly leaked. mhttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/breach-in-global-warming-bunker-shakes-foundations-of-climate-science/article1389842/
I guess nobody is buying that the NOAA has CRU’s raw data as CRU claimed to go to the NOAA and that none of their raw data was destroyed. I’m not really sure what to make of this as it sounds like Met has preconceived notions, but they also say it will take them three years to examine things. It could go either way. Perhaps the one pushing this just wants to make it look like they have preconceived notions in order to get the analysis through or this could be an attempt to sweep things under the rug. Time will tell…maybe the Met doesn’t care and so will use this to put themselves in a good position with whatever way the wind is blowing.
One wonders how the MSM is going to craft an approach to finally covering a major story that they have studiously avoided for three weeks. I’m reminded of the deer in the headlights look of several newscasters reporting on Van Jones leaving his czar post as a result of a simmering to boiling controversy that they had never bothered to mention before the fact. Perhaps they will at some point begin to realize that single minded repetition of the preferred mantras of their ideological cohorts can only lead them to profound embarrassment and inevitable irrelevance. They might even decide to return to the notion of journalism as a provider of information that is as objective as possible, but I’m not holding my breath for that one.
The data will be in just after the November 2012 election.
The classic line in this is:
“The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.”
Do we really have them that terrified?
I’m getting bored with Climategate.
Can’t we get on with NASAgate now.
The Met and the UN is assuming we will trust any of their “scientific” studies and the “results.” We already don’t trust any politicians and now the majority don’t trust scientists either. This is what happens when you cry wolf too many times or did scientists forget the moral behind that age old story.
The person who leaked these emails is a true hero and eventually needs to be recognised for bringing truth and transparency to the climate debate.
If truth and transparency leads to a world that acts in the best interest of all people then I say give Obama’s Nobel prize to whoever this person is.
Cheers
Michael
The consideration here is not to wait three years for the result, but to ensure that the data is placed in front of the public on an ongoing basis, that any raw numbers presented are cross-checked against other available sources as openly as possible, so that there’s no possibility of being presented with an alarmist fait accompli somewhere down the road that then has to be unwound AGAIN for a real understanding of what was done.
I ♥ ClimateGate
Nothing to see here. Move along.
‘The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics’.
Is this true?
Just what are we supposed to read into this?