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.
E.M. Smith
have a simple sanity check to prevent adjusting UHI the wrong way. (GIStemp does this in a significant fraction of the records… 1/4? )
WWhoah!
And I’m really glad to see that the Met Office has the data for which it is seeking permission to release. Nice to know someone had adult supervision.
Are we sure this is what they have? Maybe they are talking about restocking with GHCN data.
Re previous HADCRUT etc… above: sorry you get this pagehttp://www.uea.ac.uk/menu/acad_depts/env/cru/
and then
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/dec/homepagenews/CRUreview
Did anyone spot this gem:-
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.
In other words, the British Government is not interested in the truth, merely looking to cover its sorry … behind.
Those of us who live in the UK will recognise this kind of thinking from what is generally regarded as one of the most corrupt, authoritarian and incompetent governments we’ve had to endure for many years.
“the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.”
Now ask yourself, what major event is slated to happen near the end of 2012 (first week of November 2012, to be precise) and how much money is at stake?
It is absolutely “vital” than they “validate” global warming before the US elections in 2012 else a certain political party is going to be up a creek without a paddle.
Three years, that’s the same timespan as Harrys original project. Certainly looks like Harry got a new assignment at the MET Office. Hope he documents this as well as he did last time.
MetOffice as one of the main centers of world climate alarmism is as reliable as Berija investigating the Katyn massacre. Give it to professional statisticians, since “climatologists” have no clue except massaging data and fabricating trends.
UK PM Gordon Brown froths at the mouth:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091205/wl_uk_afp/unclimatewarmingbritainbrown
In the UK there is no opposition to AGW. All the political parties subscribe to it; it is, as in the a EU a socialist consensus. In the ‘debate’ there are no Republicans or independent Democrats to challenge the dogma of AGW, there are no scientific institutions that offer a single objection to this cobbled together science. In the US of course if they continue to vote as they did in the last presidential election they’ll get a socialist consesus as well.
“influential sceptics in other countries” I wonder who that could be?
We are all conspiracy theorists now.
Of course, the sceptic’s conspiracy theory, that climate science was being gamed by an influential clique, has been proved correct.
The warmists should take note:
48% of WUWT’s readership is international. It’s a global conspiracy to force climate data into the open.
b> Tony Abbott passes first test in his stand against an Energy Taxation Scheme
There were two bi-elections to-day in Australia as a result of Liberal members resigning from politics.
Media commentators were predicting a major swing against new anti-ETS opposition leader Tony Abbott who has been a leader for less than a week.
The backlash the AGW lobby were hoping for has not materialised and there has been virtually no change to voters’ intentions. This is a stunning victory to AGW sceptics all over the world and will give great confidence to Tony Abbott who did not expect such a good result. Kevin Rudd has now felt a few blows to the stomach (above the belt of course) and he may have to re-think his prepared rhetoric when he swans over to Copenhagen.
Comparing HadCRUT with UAH/RSS shows, that during the last 30 years HadCRUT risen by 0.1- 0.2 deg C more than those two. This is easily attributable to UHI affected stations, even stations make only 30% of the HadCRUT – so the UHI can be three times stronger than final increase, diluted with ocean SST.
The question is pre-satellite data, since e-mails revealed CRU plans to massage down the warm 1940 “blip” in newest HadSST3 dataset. Global SST makes 70% of the global dataset, and there were cosniderable changes already made in HadSST2 around 1900 period (of course, to make the whole 20th century to look warming stronger).
Arctic data from British polar ships from early 19th century show, that air temperatures were very similar to present, see http://www.corral.org.uk/digitised-logbook-observations/hms-dorothea-1818 for example.
I assume this puts the HADSST3 release on hold.
I predict, after three years, “OMG, It’s Worse Than We Thought”. Oh, and I’m sorry, but you can’t have the data or workings, we have “X” (insert suitably large figure in here) years tied up in this and you’ll only want to find something wrong with it.
Do it with full input and cooperation from all sides of the debate, or it isn’t worth doing.
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.
Much like Pearl Harbor cast some doubt on the assessment that the Imperial Japanese Navy had no power-projection capability beyond the Inland Sea.
Re VG (00:25:30) :
‘In a final note. If after Analysis, SM shows graphs that temps are increasing significantly due to C02 I would accept it.’
And how could they possibly do that other than demonstrating unequivocal positive feedback? When that happens we accept AGW and go home.
“Weather Is Not Climate”
Those meteorological temperature records are proxies for Weather.
And trying to reconstruct Climate from old records of meteorological temperature observations, i.e. weather proxies; is doomed to imprecision.
However man really is warming his own environment, by and large. It is very clear. The UHI effect is proof. QED. So why not stop there?
I think Lewis Carol had it right; The Snark of AGW has turned out to be a Boojum.
If I was the head of the Met Office, the first thing I would have done is call in Harry for a chat and to ask him
“Was it really that bad.”
I would not be surprised if his answer was
“I was trying to make it seem not so bad in the ReadMe, but I have my notes…”
Does anyone have any evidence of Ian “Harry” Harrison spending time at Met Office HQ.
I hope a valient reader will:
1. FOI to Met to list those persons or organizations in other nations (with surface and email addys) who recieved the “request” to release their data to the Met for
review.
2. FOI to Met for a COPY of each separate request sent to those individuals or organizations in
item #1.
3. FOI the Met for copies of any and all email between/among Met employees
and CRU staff or associates transmitted within the past 90 days concerning any
review of the Met’s station and tempurature data, in whole or in part.
Lidt that rock a little higher to see what’s underneath.
The Met’s going to redraw the dots
And sort out the colds from the hots
Maybe by then
The CRU will be men
And the sun will have come out in spots
DeNihilist (23:57:46) : and if three years from now, after a true open forum, the temp record looks quite the same, then can we move on to the real issue? i.e. the forcings….
What are the SI units of a “forcing”? I can’t find “forcing” in my physics book…
As near as I can tell, a “forcing” is a fictional concept, not a physical one.
But I could be wrong… So just tell me the SI units for this physics concept…
A few days ago, I posted how my old mum used to say “Don’t lie to me ‘cos one lie leads to another…….”. First Phil “Cheers” says, You can’t have it, then we lost it, then we on;y have value added………………”
Also yesterday, I posted this :-
Slightly OT but worth considering is the story of Captain Robert Fizroy, who was Captain of HMS Beagle when it took Charles Darwin on his famous expedition to Cape Horn and The Galapagos.
Fitzroy eventually created The Met Office. As a Cartographic Land Surveyor for over 50 years, I can attest to his outstanding abilities as a navigator and cartographer. HMS Beagle did much more than take Darwin to look at finches.
Fitzroy mapped most of Cape Horn, Tierra Del Fuego, Magellan Straits etc. Robert Fitzroy was a much more interesting character than Darwin. He was precise in every detail and meticulous with his records.
I would argue therefore, that his Met Office today would have continued with his standards of excellence, wouldn’t they? Surely they wouldn’t have given all their raw data to these ecowarriors at UEA. The Met Office must still have it. Needs an FOI request from someone who knows what to do with it……….
Now, the Met Office have finally woken up to the fraud, and have decided to cover their backsides, they will of course take several years, so that the public have forgotten it, and be more interested in some celebrity’s shenanigins, you know – really important stuff.
If the new study is to be really open and honest, give it to M & M, they’ll do it quickly and accurately, and more importantly transparently and probably free, although they deserve a fortune for their work.
“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.”
As was oft said of the Members of the UK Parliament during the recent expenses scandal “They just don’t get it, do they?”
This is exactly on a par with comments in the Crugate mails to the effect [annoying I can’t find it now!] “Can you imagine the fuss if we admitted that the world is cooling – it is, but it’s not statistically significant” i.e. we can’t admit to the truth because that might be used against us.
Still, while searching for the quote, I also found this…
“We’re looking at an *unprecedented* acceleration in temperature, and it’s not due to a sudden lack of volvanic eruptions. Even if it turns out to be
naturally-occurring, who’s willing to take that chance? We should be
trying to wean ourselves off of unsustainable energy generation and
use anyway. Cheers. Harry
—
Ian Harris – “Harry””
“Even if it turns out”? So much for ‘settled’ science! And the comment at the end is an interesting insight too. (Harry also seems to have a lot more confidence in the data sets when talking with others than he does in his private comments!)
Now you all know what Brown and socialism really stand for! Brave New World!!!
(with apologies to Aldous Huxley)
“In the UK there is no opposition to AGW. All the political parties subscribe to it;” – R Stevenson
Two weeks ago, you’d be correct. Two weeks ago nobody except the retired Lord Lawson even dared hint that they were slightly sceptical about AGW (and even Lawson was careful to say that he still believed in global warming and was merely quibbling about the best way to deal with it). And so far as official positions go, you’re right that nothing has changed – yet. But in the last week, several UK Conservative politicians have made publically “sceptical” statements that would have been unthinkable before Climategate. And Gordon Brown and Ed Milliband wouldn’t be rentaquoting about “climate saboteurs” and “flat-Earthers” if they didn’t think there was serious AGW opposition looming.