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.
“This is pure speculation, but one has to wonder if there has been some quiet scrutiny of the data and processing methods going on behind the scenes. If the scientists and technical people involved in processing the data set had confidence that the current code and data product could be independantly verified and validated, then why would they undertake such a radical step?”
Yeah, I guess more than just Harry read Harry_Read_Me.
How much has all the stuff we’ve turned up has gotten out to the typical person though? They might be buying the line that all we’ve found is a few e-mails that are embarrassing but don’t show anything damaging.
At least it looks like the forecast for Copenhagen getting snowed on amid cold, blustery winds might turn out to be right.
Notwithstanding the checking of 160 years of back data, I note a relativey lengthy period where solar sunspots are absent and solar flux is in the low 70s – one would indeed expect cooling of the earth. What about the fact it went up last month by 0.25 of a degree??
Hockystick part 2
“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.”
They said over the summer that they destroyed all the original data in various office moves. How can they have a new analysis of what they destroyed?
Oh, Met Office is not the same as CRU? So maybe Met Office has the original data? Was that clear in the earlier release from CRU about destroyed data? Or is this more pea and walnut shell manipulation?
Openness would be welcome, but the history here is not encouraging. Perhaps someone should file an FOI request/demand for the original data to be posted on the web and see what happens.
If it really is a completely “open” effort, then great. But I have my doubts. The IPCC reports are supposed to be written using an open process too, and look at how that turned out.
Don’t trust them…period!
The best explanation I have read.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/features/the-buy-side/dont-let-climategate-melt-down-your-portfolio/article1389653/
then where will our governments go from here?
Hopefully back to their proper roles, like protecting our borders, coining money and leaving everything else to the people of the individual states. But I am sure the politicians will invent another crisis to take more control our American rights.
How many temperature measurement stations might there be which need to be included in the complete data base?
How many of those already have the real, authentic, unaltered original measurement data put into digitized data bases?
Do a random sample of the digitized data to see whether it matches the data in the original form in which the data was recorded.
Go get the rest of the data and put it into digitized data bases.
Pay the national met offices who don’t want their data in the public domain, so they can go home and roll in their dough–it’s bound to be cheaper than the cost of unwarranted carbon dioxide emission limits.
Put the data in the public domain. Let everyone who wants to examine it do so.
Who knows how many different ways there might be to adjust the data for real, genuine, honest reasons? Who cares? Put them all out there and see what difference it might make–then scrutinize the outliers to see if they are plausible.
It shouldn’t take 3 years, unless they don’t get some really good programming experts involved at the beginning to build the code to implement the adjustments in a way that everyone can see–not in a “black box.”
But even if it takes 3 years, I’ll wait.
I think I have died and gone to Heaven! Any way you cut it, the mantra that “the science is settled” is dead meat when the Met Office, of all institutions, makes the concession it just made. I’m guessing that by now some of those long-suffering computer programmers in CRU have been interviewed by beady-eyed lawyers trying to assess institutional liability for the Big Dogs. I’m guessing the Big Dogs have gotten an ear-full.
When Al Gore is “hiding out” you just know its been a good day for TRUTH.
Now, about that boy Hansen’s work over in the U.S.?
CH
“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
I think that there is more to it than just a re-examination of the data…….my guess is that the ‘leaker/hacker’ is known to have more in the way of files that can be released.
I hope so.
When all is said and done, the scientific community must quantify the affect of man’s CO2 contribution, within reason, and give us an actual number or percentage of man’s influence on the temperature of the planet relative to all other non human influences. Did I say that right?
The UK may just be preparing to skip the whole mess.
Sounds like a good enough Get-out-of-jail-card to me.
Met office says 3 years at least, the next rationale would be:
“What are we going to Copenhagen for, lads?. Right. Miss MoneyPenny, would you please send this cancellation to COP15 right away. Courtesy of Mr. Bond. James Bond.”
Think we should engage Jimmy Carter to supervise the re-count of the temperature record.
12/5/2009 12:45:44 AM
“Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data
Ben Webster, Environment Editor
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….”
So with what data? the lost ones? LOL
Funny the same work was already done for New Zealand and showed no warming at all…
You can bet it won’t take that long for the code and weighting station tricks to be exposed.
Lady in Red (20:29:12) :
The pods are moving in, boys. Help.
Help is on the way. Have no fear.
Quick….destroy them before they hatch!
——————————
Is Gordon Brown for real? He can actually stoop so low to the “flat-earth” comment??
Ironically, it is THEY that are the flat-earthers, not us.
The pseudoscience of the AGW religion is the ESSENCE of “flat-earth”!!
Chris
Norfolk (not East Anglia) VA, USA
If this poor consistency of data gathering
30% missing. And that’s just for the US (which is considered superior).
and lack of station move information is typical
Yes.
then the couple of degrees F increase that we are supposed to have had since the 1800s is impossible to document.
Pretty much. Though we must try. At least bang together the best raw data record we can.
twawki (20:02:09) : I believe you misspoke. I think you meant to say:
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 bow to and things to do as it is.
The key point is that now that HADCRUT has been seriously compromised, all supercomputer models that were “a perfect match for the HADCRUT” just means they all fidgetted with the parameters to make their models fit the curve!
Their credibility is gone.
I’ve had two of my comments censored – meaning completely deleted at Realclimate. And a post mutilated by selective censorship.
Anand: I had five of my ten comments to RealClimate censored or edited when I kept pushing Gavin about just this issue of releasing all the data and methodology behind the AGW findings.
This news from the UK Met service is great!
The Met office has a ton of data for the UK at least. I downloaded temperature readings for Armagh (Northern Ireland) from their website that date back to 1865 now i assume they got these readings from the Armagh Observatory which actually has records available since 1844. 20 odd years being omitted. Now assuming that the Observatory standardised its data correctly you would expect this data to appear in the Met office data. Met office data appears to be rounded to one decimal place, however where some monthly mean data seems to be rounded correctly there are many months that are not. Why some months are ok and others not, is beyond me.
Here is the data if anyone is interested.
Met Office data sheets
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/stationdata/armaghdata.txt
Armagh Observatory
http://climate.arm.ac.uk/calibrated/airtemp/index.html
Junkscience has made a graph of this data showing no unusual warming.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a702a1ff970b-pi
Claude Harvey (21:32:17) :
Now, about that boy Hansen’s work over in the U.S.?
We’ll take care of him, but how are we going to deprogram
all the kids?
CRU adjustment procedures:
STEP 1
http://cientifica.eu/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/sneetches.gif
STEP 2
http://blog.rifftrax.com/wp-content/photos/sylvester_mcmonkey_mcbean.jpg
I hope someone interviews station attendants in Siberia to find out how much they downshifted their temperature reports during the Soviet era, so a correction factor can be applied.