Quite a bit different from their November 24th statement, which you can read here. For those that still think Climategate has no significant impact on climate science, this revelation tells another story.
Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data
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.
ben corde (02:09:55) :
Now you all know what Brown and socialism really stand for! Brave New World!!!
If only! I’ve seen too much evidence of a “Cowardly New World.” However, it only takes a brave few to route thousands.
” How could one chase a thousand,
And two put ten thousand to flight,
Unless their Rock had sold them,
And the LORD had given them up? Deuteronomy 32:30
” One of your men puts to flight a thousand,
for the LORD your God is He who fights for you,
just as He promised you. Joshua 23:10
3×2,
The cold weather data is actually counter to the warmist alarmism.
The IPCC made a point that warmer summer weather will kill so many thousands a year but failed to mention how many would be killed by cold weather.
Warmer summers might kill more people in the summer but a warmer winter will kill fewer people.
What this article does is focus us on the fact that all things are not equal.
Rising fuel prices (part of the measures taken and to be taken more vigorously as part of the green agenda) will cause a further increase in cold weather deaths as people forgo heating they cannot afford so we have an amplifying effect.
From a warmist perspective, they’d certainly like to play down the effects of cold weather and even more certainly the impact of fuel carbon taxes on the death rate.
So it is interesting that the article is most noteworthy for saying absolutely nothing about global warming or climate change, phrases normally dropped into virtually every comment on anything to do with the weather. They don’t even have the words climate or warming independently used, words that might normally find their way into an article such as “in the current economic climate” i.e. the depression.
They don’t even attempt to explain why fuel prices rose 40% as that might have to include some references to climate change measures. Windmill subsidies?
Why is that?
Well, I’d guess its so that the search engines won’t find it with any of the usual search terms. If it isn’t deliberate, I’d be some what surprised but then, I’m becoming very suspicious that people are waking up to the dangers of the internet which is the only reason why we are even having these discussions. If we relied on the mainstream media we’d be ignorant as newborn babes.
I wonder how common that trick is?
Any other examples I wonder?
Mods: At the very least * a language clean-up is needed in the 4th paragraph of the post by reLOVEution (07:20:05) above …
.
.
.
.
.
* There is more that needs to be addressed in that post, but I’m not going to spend the time …
[Objectionable word deleted. ~dbs, mod.]
.
.
Why not just release the raw data, and between us all we could get an answer in six weeks.
Oh, and cost 1% as much as the Met Office will charge. Oh, sorry, that’s why they will not propose this.
.
What the met office should do is create a raw data set without any correction for UHI, type of sensor, movement of the site, etc. The data should include type of sensor, location/height of sensor, date of observation and value. That’s it. Once they have that, the data should be made available to anyone and everyone who wants to attempt making sense of it. Rottsa ruck. The raw data is a mess, but as long as we have 30 or 40 unique attempts to correct it, we should at least get some idea of the error range. That’s better than one “trust me.”
anna v (04:43:37) :
The whole concept of the meaning of “global temperature” and its “anomalies” will have to be rethought by future true climate scientists.
Anna and others,
This whole global temperature controversy has amazed me that what seems so simple to measure should be so controversial. But here is my question:
Why not:
1) Position a dozen or so satellites in geosync orbit and measure reflected energy from earth.
2) Place one satellite in sun synchronous orbit and measure incident energy.
3) For good measure, measure energy reflected from the Moon.
4) Subtract 1) from 2) plus 3)
If 4) is negative we must eventually cool; if positive we must eventually warm.
>>We’ll take care of him, but how are we going to
>>deprogram all the kids?
Yes, that is a real problem. Take a look at this horrendous UK advert for global warming, that plays on every childish heartstring there is. It is utterly disgusting – worse than anything Goebbels could have dreamed of.
If you want to complain about this advert, fill in this form.
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/how_to_complain/
.
We’ll take care of him, but how are we going to deprogram
all the kids?
Abolish the government school system and also allow true liberty in hiring and firing in business. The free market will do the rest. There is no perfect solution as far as outcome is concerned but there are optimum approaches to MAXIMIZE good.
There is no need to force good ideas on people and bad ideas should not be forced on people. What need then for our huge present government?
Another New Zealand???????????????
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Alaska_Climate.pdf
ClimateGate was the nail in the coffin.
The coffin is now officially buried for 3 years.
E.M.Smith (00:55:11) :
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/category/ncdc-ghcn-issues/
And it was very good. 😉
Very very very very good…. and very very very very amazing…
@ur momisugly Icebergs Everywhere! (02:43:29) :
Could anyone tell me of a layman’s reference site for writing British FOI requests,please?
Here
http://www.foi.gov.ie/how-do-i-make-an-foi-request
Tallbloke (07:15) (Hi Rog.)
I think the question whether HADCRUT3 and GISTEMP could be affected by the same problems is a good one, but my understanding is that they take the same set of raw data (e.g. GHCN) and process it in quite different ways. I guess you could assert they somehow agreed to make sure that it all aligns at the end, but that’s stretching my Occam filter a bit too far, personally.
But this train of thought really leaves the tracks when it comes to RSS and UAH, I think. This is completely separate data source (AMSU satellite) processed in two different ways. We know that UAH and RSS diverge between themselves, and let’s leave that for them to argue about, but the fact remains that RSS at least tracks almost perfectly with HADCRUT3 and GISTEMP.
Now, obviously at some point the satellite data must have been calibrated to known surface temperatures, and I admit I don’t know how that was done, but presumably it was done back in 1979. For these series (at least for RSS) to follow exactly the same trend as HADCRUT3 thereafter indicates to me that they are all collectively basically on the money, plus or minus some noise.
We still need the data, software, and documents from CRU so we can study what was done.
For the life of me I can’t figure out why it was so easy to sell the idea that “climate” is so one dimensional that we can measure, and forecast it, using only temperatures.
Even short range (1-72 hours) forecasts require more than temperatures to make with any degree of accuracy. Public safety is paramount in forecasting trips to and from widely scattered airfields around the world using temperature records badly contaminated with UHI — but is being done quite well, for the most part, all over the planet.
Lets face it – a weather observation is just a slice of ‘climate’ at a particular time, but it requires far more information than temperature to be useful for making these vitally accurate predictions. Unfortunately, that ‘slice’ can change very rapidly.
Just imagine a pilot being briefed for a trans-pacific fight and being told that the expected average temperature at your flight level will be -45, “Have a good flight!”
Is it possible that Obama is delaying his appearance at Copenhagen to gain a little time to divine which way the political winds are blowing? The way the Climategate scandal is snowballing, the picture may look quite different in a week. I think the ETS failing the the Australian senate was a wake up call to the politicians. As I understand it, the Liberals took a very risky bet that there was more AGW skepticism than was apparent, or at least there would be by the time an early election came up and there was more time to disseminate the climategate story. The AGW crowd might control the main stream media, but that is irrelevant in the internet age. They are just now getting the message. The Democrats’ loss of the governors races in Virginia and New Jersey also demonstrate that they do not have enduring support to enact their agenda and are very vulnerable in the 2010 elections. This is so different from last fall, when everyone thought the Republicans were left for dead for decades after the Obama sweep. Even if the US senate were to pass a cap and trade bill now, it would stand little chance of enactment. It would no doubt be different from the House version and have to go through conference committee to settle the differences, then voted on by both houses. It won in the House the first time by 7 votes. It seems highly likely that four net vote changes to against would be likely since climategate broke. The scandal gives fence-sitters some political cover. Remember that 100% of the house has to face the voters next fall. Poll numbers for AGW are falling.
I wonder what advice Obama is getting from his “science” advisor (John Holdren) regarding climategate. If he is minimizing it as seems likely, he should be fired.
I am concerned about whether the Senate would ratify a Copenhagen treaty. Distrust of the UN runs deep here, so there is a bit of hope in that regard as well.
Nomination for quote of the week: “If Obama puts his signature on anything at Copenhagen, he’ll be dropping a frag grenade into the Democrats’ canoe.” Gregg E. (03:15:09) :
woodfortrees (Paul Clark) (09:43:37) :
Tallbloke (07:15) (Hi Rog.)
I think the question whether HADCRUT3 and GISTEMP could be affected by the same problems is a good one, but my understanding is that they take the same set of raw data (e.g. GHCN) and process it in quite different ways. I guess you could assert they somehow agreed to make sure that it all aligns at the end, but that’s stretching my Occam filter a bit too far, personally.
Yes, as I said, Phil Jones at CRU said GIStemp was inferior because of their UHI adjustment method. And I hear you about the satellite data, but it’s the early period where there has been a lot of readjustment going on on both sides of the pond. Obviously they both know they can’t get away with fiddling post 1979 data, but the 1905 lowpoint, and early highs, easy.
“David S (21:35:05) :
“REPLY: you can look at the B91 forms in PDF form from the observer here:”
Anthony If we were to take on that task would we need to record daily temperature readings or just the monthly average max and min which is recorded on the form?
REPLY: Daily high/low”
That’s a big task. I estimate about 10 minutes to copy one month’s data to a spread sheet. That comes out to 200 hours for one station with a 100 year history. That’s five 40 hour weeks per station and it doesn’t include checking.
But being a retired geezer and slightly crazy, I might be willing to give it a try. Is anyone else game? I guess we’d need to formulate a plan to decide which stations to use and maybe assign two people to do each station so they can cross check their results.
REPLY: On the NCDC web site, they already have preliminary data transcribed from the B91. – A
CO2 Science has a good list of Copenhagen references/resources here: click
Without photographs of every site they use, their analysis will be useless. Is the thermometer in the middle of a field or in the middle of a parking lot? Is it on a roof, or next to a building? Etc, etc, etc.
Without a full account of what is being measured now and what was measured in the past, they have no idea what they are really measuring.
Re Benford Law claim DocMartyn (07:09:44),
this data has too narrow a range for the law to hold. Not all data obeys the law. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law#Applications_and_limitations
Gordon, it’s a badge I’ll wear with pride.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100018945/gordon-brown-says-james-delingpole-and-the-climate-change-sceptics-are-flat-earthers/
TonyB (00:03:48) :
I guess you’ll have to carry Vicki Pope kicking and screaming (that the debate is over). Best of luck and we may learn just how closed her mind is.
I’m puzzled by this remark:
“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.”
Why would any government not push for a complete reexamination, one that might prove their position? They would rather rely on “data” that is unreliable?
If you torture data sufficiently, it will confess to almost anything. — Fred Menger
Back2Bat (08:31:14) :
The satellite age is OK.
One would still need to know in detail how to turn energy into temperatures, since all the old records and proxy records are about temperatures, not energies, and that is why the satellite data is given as temperatures. I am just pointing out once more that the problem is multidimensional over the surface of the earth, which is not a black body radiator, but a gray one with varying constants all over the map, so it is not simple to get energy from temperatures as has been assumed up to now by the climate industry.