Readers may recall some months ago that the Met Office planned to “do over” the surface temperature data sets:
Met office pushes a surface temperature data “do over”
The effort has started, and a website has been setup at http://www.surfacetemperatures.org
They write:
Surface temperature datasets for the 21st Century
To meet 21st Century requirements it is necessary to reconsider our analyses of historical land surface temperature changes. This is about much more than simply re-engineering existing datasets. These datasets were adequate for assessing whether climate was changing at the global scale. This current exercise should not be interpreted as a fundamental questioning of these previous efforts. But these pre-existing datasets cannot answer all the questions that society is now quite rightly asking. They do not constitute a sufficiently large sample to truly understand our uncertainty at regional scales. At monthly resolution they are also of limited utility in characterising extremes in climate and their changes.
Regardless of the causes, climate is not and never has been stable. Changes in climate impact all of society. But it is not changes in the monthly mean at scales of hundreds of Km that impact us all. It is changes at much more local scales and that last a few hours or days that have a major impact upon society. Whilst the long-term changes characterised by the current datasets can ameliorate or exacerbate the effects these datasets are fundamentally ill-suited to meet most of our needs as a global society.
The challenge set out in the proposal from the Met Office to the Commission for Climatology (CCl, see background link) is to produce a new suite of datasets capable of answering these questions. This requires more than the work of a single institution to do at all. It certainly requires very many partners to do properly. Following the positive outcome of the CCl deliberations an organising committee has been convened and the Met Office will be hosting a workshop in September in Exeter, UK. The organising committee, with substantial international representation, includes a broad range of expertise and perspectives and is undertaking planning activities. As yet planning is at too early a stage to publish details. More specific information will be posted by mid-June. However, the expected outcome of this meeting will be an in-depth plan with multi-institution sign on as to how to proceed. Broad aspects to be covered will be:
- Data recovery, digitisation and provision;
- data homogenisation and homogenisation system performance benchmarking;
- and communication, engagement and auditability
The plan is to solicit white papers on the range of topics to be discussed in advance of the meeting and post these on a (moderated) blog for broad input so that non-participants in the meeting can still have some meaningful input. The invitee list includes representatives from a number of relevant disciplines including a number that need to be engaged if the project is to be a success: climatologists; metrologists (measurement scientists); and statisticians amongst others. To be effective the meeting will have to be relatively small but, as stated above, stringent efforts will be made to entrain input from non-attendees in advance. And, of course, participation in the work will not be limited to attendees of this initial planning meeting only – to be successful it needs lots of participants, many more than will be at the meeting.
Update: 7/26 A revised version of the agenda is now available with only minor changes from the original. The white papers have begun to be posted at http://sites.google.com/a/surfacetemperatures.org/home/whitepapers (all hopefully to be posted within a week) and a moderated blog for public comments is available from http://surfacetemperatures.blogspot.com/ until August 23rd.
Update: 8/20 New version of agenda and comment period will remain open until September 1st.
==============================================
Here’s my take on it:
1) The effort, while noble, is a reaction to a series of data transparency blunders rather than a proactive approach to open replication. In the original Fox News article I cited on Feb 23rd, 2010 they write:
At a meeting on Monday of about 150 climate scientists, representatives of Britain’s weather office quietly proposed that the world’s climatologists start all over again to produce a new trove of global temperature data that is open to public scrutiny and “rigorous” peer review.
After the firestorm of criticism called Climate-gate, the British government’s official Meteorological Office apparently has decided to wave a white flag and surrender.
While this effort is a step forward, it is unfortunate that it took Climategate to break free the idea of open and transparent data, and of surface data that has gone through rigorous quality control procedures. As we’ve seen recently, Canada’s own surface weather data is in such a mess that Environment Canada squelched their own embarrassing internal report and it took a freedom of information request to pry it loose. They called the state of the network “disturbing’.
2) This statement from the white paper 3, item 8 discussed here says:
A parallel effort as an integral part of establishing the databank is required to create an adjunct metadata databank that as comprehensively as feasible describes known changes in instrumentation, observing practices and siting at each site over time. This may include photographic evidence, digital images and archive materials but the essential elements should be in machine-readable form.
Is essentially a stamp of approval of my surfacestations.org project. Without knowing the changes in measurement conditions surrounding the century long experiment in climate monitoring, it is impossible to know the true quality of the data. I see this as a positive step forward.
3) Making this effort known to the climate community has apparently not been a strong suite of the Met Office, for example, I only found out about it a couple of days ago via a reporter asking questions about my views on it.
The Met office needs to be far more proactive in communications.
I encourage readers to make submissions before the Sept 1 deadline, as only a few days remain.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Unfortunately the MET Office has zero credibility left. They frittered it away with a thousand silly scare stories.
I would sooner hope that a new transparent and philanthropic business model proposed by The Mafia might turn out to have some merit.
If the agenda behind this is to genuinely and honestly establish an accurate and truthful record of what global and regional temperature trends actually are, and they take a truly neutral and openly scientific approach according to the scientific method, then this can only be a good thing.
However, if they are starting with a hidden agenda to promote the “world is warming at a catastrophic rate” meme and they automatically reject any data that contradicts that view, then this will be a disaster.
If this is the former and the result is reliable and trustworthy data that shows categorically that the earth is warming at an alarming rate, then I shall accept it.
But, crucially, HOW are we more sceptical “laypersons” to know one way or the other if this is a genuine, honest, scientific search for truth instead of a slight of hand manipulation to endorse a political position?
“…and the Met Office will be hosting a workshop in September in Exeter, UK” – apparently the same event R.A. Pielke Sr. comments on here(?):
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/08/23/meeting-september-7-9-2010-surface-temperature-datasets-for-the-21st-century-chaired-by-peter-thorne/
Its easy to say open honest. The proof of the pudding will be in the composition of the working party, the transparency of their approach to dealing with historic temperature records, The handling and preservation of existing records and explanation/reasons and justifications for any proposed changes to be submitted for open discussion.
I would hope that the calibre of that proposed blog site and its moderation, will be leaps and bounds above the partisan effort of Real Climate and similar defenders of todays warming faith, if it is to achieve and re-instate credibility needed for the basics of weather science.
To be credible, they should have at least two other parties involved in transcribing the existing historical data into electronic form, to ensure there’s no “value adding”, “homogenizing” or any other mucking about.
Simply enter the date, time and temperature etc from the logbooks as written.
I thought the WMO was doing something to establish a credible data set of both unadjusted and adjusted temperatures?
Was I wrong, or is this the same thing? or is it different?
So I assume they will be contacting Anthony for his view and data forthwith……?
Typo – sentence cut-off mid-stream?
…what?
REPLY: Cut and paste error. Here’s the corrected text.
As we’ve seen recently, Canada’s own surface weather data is in such a mess that Environment Canada squelched their own embarrassing internal report and it took a freedom of information request to pry it loose. They called the state of the network “disturbing’.
– Anthony
[snip – inappropriate video clip ~mod]
Something tells me ‘warmer’ is a foregone conclusion. And I’m not even a psychic.
“At monthly resolution they are also of limited utility in characterising extremes in climate and their changes.”
“But it is not changes in the monthly mean at scales of hundreds of Km that impact us all. It is changes at much more local scales and that last a few hours or days that have a major impact upon society… ….are ill-suited to meet most of our needs as a global society.”
This is really easy folks: People are realizing that there is no reason to panic over the current rate of climate change and so there needs to be a terrifying dataset about some farmers dry fields and cottages hit by storm-fallen trees.
Apparently it is no longer the climate ppl have to worry about but the weather again. This has the added bonus that being a new kind of data, we will see “worst ever” scenarios happen pretty much all the time until the data accumulates in decades…
There are still two huge things missing that I want to see before I can believe them
(1) Sorry.
(2) Thank you Anthony for your Surface Stations work that brought all these problems to our notice.
It is shameful that professionals should need to be brought to heel by amateurs. And what I don’t understand is the reticence in apologizing. The disciplines of Counselling and Life Coaching both show that saying Sorry (and Thank You) are of health and wealth benefit, and most of all to the person who says Sorry.
Julia Slingo is still a warmist. Probably that goes together with the still-unsaid Sorry.
21st century temperatures in relation to what? Little Ice Age? Historic reconstructions which aren’t reliable either? Smog covered cities of the 19th century?
It’s a waste of taxpayer’s money. Tell me next week’s weather and that’s all.
They have come down in the science scale since the 1966 WMO London conference on climate change 8,000-0 B.C. (where the first systematic data on the secular cycle that comprises such events like MWP and LIA was first recognized on a Global scale by B. Frenzel). Now they are known here only for poor summer-winter weather predictions, and are perhaps up for sale. Realistically though, one cannot expect such established institutions as the Met Office to make PUBLIC admissions or corrections of method errors with anything more than half-steps. It is not possible yet, in the dysfunctional climate ‘science’ climate for such institutions to admit gross error, so really, these half-steps to me show good faith and recognition of at least some error. Biped Hominids as a whole are clearly a group of highly socially IMMITATIVE species, and this group includes scientific workers of course. As this will be a multi-year project, in the PRIVATE minds of the project participants, there is possibly some realization that a sea-change of the research climate will take place this period, and that ‘alternate’ interpretation of the database can then take place without the kind of peer-harassment that would have emerged as recently as last year on this issue. I think that sea-change is already coming, and will grow stronger as the gov.-financial support of this CO2-based AGW nonsense slowly unravels.
“rigorous qulaity control” doh!
I agree with Ken Hall. Unless they are prepared to start with a totally clean sheet — no preconceptions — then we are going to be back on the same old treadmill. It’s important that they understand why: if there is any downside to climate change of the magnitude that the IPCC and its adherents have been touting (and from what I have read here and elsewhere I don’t think there is) we need to be as certain as we can be that we are getting good data and good conclusions.
I’m interested in the following paragraph:
Regardless of the causes, climate is not and never has been stable. Changes in climate impact all of society. But it is not changes in the monthly mean at scales of hundreds of Km that impact us all. It is changes at much more local scales and that last a few hours or days that have a major impact upon society.
This is the first published admission I have seen from the Met Office that climate “never has been” stable. But how are we supposed to interpret the last sentence? That’s not climate they’re talking about; that’s weather, by anybody’s definition surely?!
This has the makings of a Damascene conversion but the skeptic in me tells me not to hold my breath!
I agree with Lucy – replace the hubris with a little humility as a first step to regaining trust. The politically correct terminology of the press release seems to be couched so as to not ruffle anyone’s feathers. However, to state that the current datasets have been adequate on a global scale is clearly a crock. Again, I agree with Lucy.
Wikipedia: “Hubris often indicates being out of touch with reality and overestimating one’s own competence or capabilities, especially for people in positions of power.”
It seems that this exercise will enable the Met. Office to reduce the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods temperatures and rates of temperature rise to prove that the 20th century is warmer and temperature rise faster than any other due to AGW. They will out Gore Gore.
There’s another huge effect of correcting surface temperatures that I think nobody’s really spelled out.
If we take advice from McKitrick for starters, and work on the cumulative distortions of basic records from UHI etc, we seem to be looking at 0.5 deg C overshoot at least.
Does removing this then restore the correlation with solar fluctuations that supposedly failed after 1970, so that we can again say It’s The Sun, Not CO2???
David Archibald, someone, an essay on this would be nice.
Here in Britain the Met Office is a bit of a joke. Their long term forecasts since about 1999 have been increasingly bizarre. They predicted several “Barbecue Summers” in the spring only for the entire summer to be a washout. They told us that snow is a thing of the past – with the result that local government stopped stockpiling salt and grit for the roads – just before the entire country was paralysed by a massive fall of the stuff. Then they scrapped their long term forecasts without explanation and without saying “Sorry” for all the trouble they had caused. Of course, their predictions of hot summers and mild winters got loads of media coverage about global warming, while the reality was barely mentioned.
Just for your info, our summer holiday in Wales was a washout. Only one day of sunny weather to take the children to the beach.
It seems surprising to me that this story wasn’t run prominently in all the major UK newspaper titles a few months ago. I admit, it’s possible that it was and I missed it, but I’m sure you lot wouldn’t have.
I’m all for a global data set, but if there is only to be one, then it must be subject to the most rigorous transparency and scientific critique possible, because if it isn’t, it’ll become like a religion. And climate data is too important to become a religion with a modern day set of Knights Templar keeping their secret rituals under lock and key….
The biggest question of all this is who will fund it.
And where it will be hosted.
I think hosting it in London would be a good idea.
But many others might not.
Time will tell………
Weather forcast yesterday ITV UK,
The temperature will reach double figure in TOWNS and CITIES during the night.
In bureaucrat language this is an admission of failure and a new start – it seems positive to me.
Also the (current) UK gov has some smart, skeptical people briefing on this issue (Lord Lawson, etc.), and are essentially realists IMO. They are somewhat beholden to the Green movement as they’re dependant on the liberals for the majority.
I expect and hope that the absurd 80% CO2 reduction policy will quietly be shelved, and some of the career alarmists at the Met will be “involved” in the 20% reduction planned in state workers.
Why does the presence of the word “homogenisation” make the hairs on the back of my neck stand up?
And exactly how are they going to get such minute data over time and space for the whole planet from 1700? 1800? 1900?
Climate is NOT the 30 year average of weather. The 30 year average of weather is still weather. (There are longer weather cycles such as the PDO, AMO, etc.) Climate is a 30,000 year scale event. Until they get past this fundamental breakage of their words, they will never get it right. All they will find is long duration weather cycles that scare themselves.
The Sahara has been the Sahara for a few thousand years, and is still now.
The Mediterranean has been a “Mediterranean Climate Zone” for thousands of years, during the MWP and the LIA. And is still now.
Russian taiga has been taiga as long as there have been Russians, and is now.
See Koppen’s Climate Classification system map and description:
http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/images/climate_map.gif
http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/climate.htm
So one hopes they realize they are finding that weather changes, and scaring themselves about it. Looking at it with even higher magnification will just make the bugs look bigger. They need to step back and see the big picture.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/how-long-is-a-long-temperature-history/
“But these pre-existing datasets cannot answer all the questions that society is now quite rightly asking.”
As in why do they keep telling me that this is the warmest year since forever, when I’m freezing my bollocks off? They have realized that the unwashed don’t really understand the difference between weather and climate, relying on memory from a purely local perspective, which is always susceptible to personal bias. A local dataset will provide a double edged sword in as much as local cooling can be explained as merely “local” and just weather. Alternatively, a local warming in the dataset will definitely be proof of broader climate change and an invaluable tool in the propaganda campaign. That said I believe that an attempt to “clean up” the record is desirable as long as the “cleaning” is transparent and open to all stakeholders. Lastly, however as in most human endeavors where there exists an agenda or the potential to influence “he who keeps the secrets, controls the answers”.