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.
Met office spokesman just been on BBC news 24 saying they will not be reanalysing the data. They will be making some data available however
These guys have been studying this for years. If there was
anything to the AGW claims, it would not be necessary
to fake anything. Don’t fall into the trap. The MET office
should be ordered to forecast the weather and that’s all.
They have lost all credibility. Does anyone trust any of the
players to investigate themselves? Come on people!
Bob Tisdale (01:35:50) :
I assume this puts the HADSST3 release on hold.
Is that a prediction Bob?
You’re slipping. 😉
John Mitchell from the Met Office has just been interviewed on BBC News 24 – approx 10:15 and denied that they are re-evaluating the data but are just making it available. So how raw would this raw data be? It’s very frustrating listening to the media interviewers when they don’t put the right counter arguments but just allow the pro lobby to trot out their “the temperature measurement science is settled” statements – where is the true investigative spirit with these journalists – too busy reporting celeb trivia probably.
Fastforward to 2012:
1. The MetOrffice will have completed its reanalysis.
2. They will announce that the unprecendented warming claimed in 2009 is indeed confirmed, actually worse than they thought.
3. But in 2012, we will be in a cold period, starting a LIA, and nobody will be listening to their crap.
This is classic way of delaying the process why three years. The following has been posted at Climate Audit also.
The enquiry here is the one by CRU:
Bob Ward of the Grantham Trust. “Why don’t you wait for the enquiry you have already made up your mind”
Fraser Nelson of the Spectator “No I just read the emails”
Priceless watch here almost as good as the arsenal interview?
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5601393/what-happens-when-you-try-to-debate-climate-change.thtml
OT, but this is a great mock wikipedia article on global warming:
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Global_warming
(opening quote: “You may be looking for Scientology and not even know it!”)
The Met Office is confident that its analysis will eventually be shown to be correct.
And isn’t this exactly the attitude that has been exposed by climategate? Draw your conclusions and then fit the data.
However, it says it wants to create a new and fully open method of analysing temperature data.
What should happen now is that some organisation is given the task of assembling raw data into one publicly accessible source. No other task. No analysis. No “adjustments” of any kind. Just a straight transcription of “B91” forms and a scan of said form. The provenance of each series should be clearly stated and the series “locked” down with a checksum. If someone later wants to “Hansen” a series this should be perfectly obvious to all when the checksums don’t match.
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.
Government logic at it’s very best. Instead of addressing the very real problems exposed by climategate their answer is more of the same. Yes minister, more dogma, more secrecy, more children crying themselves to sleep over drowning puppies. It has done a great job of silencing the sceptics so far.
Model
3 years ? Now let me see, 3 years to write the program and 0.0005 seconds in the met offices NEW trillion £ computer,
Could anyone tell me of a layman’s reference site for writing British FOI requests,please? I looked on the Government site but couldn’t find anything (probably didn’t know where to look!). It’s regarding the BBC and maybe the UEA also.
If they publish the data as they receive it, the raw data that is, then we can have an “open source” style approach.
I’m sure there are plenty of suitably qualified people to share the workload and get it done in a few weeks.
They need to publish a list of those they have applied to for data and show the response – name and shame organisations that play silly buggers.
I’d guess we can get started already because the New Zealand data is already available.
However, can we start with a definition of “raw data”.
That doesn’t mean a spread sheet or data base, it probably means lots of scraps of reporting forms complete with coffee rings and fingerprints – amazing what transcription errors can do for the data.
It should also require compiling a full history of the surface station from which each data set has been sourced.
Then there needs to be a lot of very serious work about how the data from any station can be or should be adjusted and approved adjustments allowed only as necessary and only for legitimate reasons.
As has been said before, we need some sensible purpose designed carefully located weather stations. We need this before any adjustments can take place.
So, with a suspect station, you now surround it with ideal stations carefully located and build a data set so you can look at how the original station performs with reference to a control set and then you can decide how to treat the historical data from the station.
You also evaluate how the data from surrounding existing stations relates to the subject station and the control set to try and establish if there is any meaningful way in which historical data from existing stations can be adjusted with reference to other historical data.
Of course, we could juts let the Met go back to the we finger approach or the end result orientated adjustments.
This is all about weather station data.
Now we come to the proxy data.
This is a very tough problem and I suspect what we need is o set up a few organisations to review all the science so far and evaluate the various methods so far applied. This is going to be the tough one and it is here of all places that we need open science.
Data needs to be presented raw. Trees, for example, need identifying and supporting with a complete site profile that is part of the data set and it should include lots of other data, if tree rings are included at all.
In short, what are needed are standards and oversight and open science.
For the amount of money being spent I’d say that no climate science should be relied on that hasn’t been fully exposed on the internet where it can be reviewed by everyone. We paid for it, we are entitled to see it.
PS
I wonder if the Met hasn’t been guilty of confusing weather with climate?
Or are they just embarrassed at forecasting a bar B Q summer and everyone drowning as usual.
It would be interesting to see them repeat, once they have the new and “un-value added” data, the forecasts to see how much better or worse their forecasts would have been with clean data.
This would give us a nice appreciation for the relevance of “value added” adjustments.
If, for example, the forecast improves with raw data than with value added data then we know the added value was crap. I doubt this would work though. What we’ll probably find is that the forecasts were adjusted (sorry, value added) after being generated by the super computer and made to match the predictions and that the final forecast had not too much relationship with the data.
http://www.edparsons.com/2009/12/data-the-key-to-the-climate-change-debate/
Is this an offer from Google to host the data once it is open?
crosspatch (01:06:42) :
“Now ask yourself, what major event is slated to happen near the end of 2012 …..”
Isn’t that when The Mayans said it was all going to end?
Roy Spencer claims Climate Gate II will focus on the models, and seems a bit worried about that. Why I ask?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
The performance of the models have been even more pathetic than the CRU science. One only has to look at the models said about hurricanes, global temps and sea level rise.
Also look how they handle clouds and sun activity.
People are doing all sorts of comparisons, but you have to keep in mind that the Hadley Centre merged two incompatible SST datasets in 1997/98 and the merger caused a rise in their HADSST2 of approximately 0.1 deg C, when compared to other SST datasets:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/12/step-change-in-hadsst-data-after-199798.html
It also exists when you compare HADSST2 and HADISST data:
http://i48.tinypic.com/2uzb3ir.png
Thanks for those offering to sign the letter to the Met Office as mentioned here
“TonyB (00:03:48) :
I live close to the Met Office in Exeter. On Monday I will be personally delivering a letter addressed to Vicky Pope….”
Any other offers for signatures?
By the way people can forget it if they think there will be any sort of objective investigation of the old temperature records
Front Page News in our local paper (covering the Met office area in Exeter) was
“10 years to save the World” with an exclusive interview by non other than Julia Slingo chief scientist at the Met office.
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/homepagenews/10-YEARS-SAVE-WORLD/article-1578308-detail/article.html
Perhaps the moderators might like to append this link to the original article heading this thread so it is a permanent recoprd of the contempt in which we ‘sceptics’ are held and the buckets of whitewash that will accompany the Met office investigation.
Tonyb
E.M.Smith (00:55:11) :
Honestly E.M! I know I said I thought you might be ‘the one’ (GIStemp Reloaded) and we do follow your gospel, but…!!!!
BTW your roadmap @ur momisugly(00:21:34) is excellent. Thank you. Thank you.
TonyB (00:03:48) : have you a from of words that would allow you to use IDs that are aliases? if so count me in.
Well
I guess that if the methodology is truly open, the data sources are available and the sages of this site can check what they are doing, then that is all that anyone is asking for.
If however, this is again part of a cover-up, people who’ve been caught shamelessly behaving unethically thinking that they can keep their power and influence by just spending 3 more years with a slightly different spin, then I’d say ‘don’t waste the UK’s money’.
One hopes that truly independent observers will be watching on firmly to ensure that the same old nonsense isn’t going to be peddled again…..
Ok it is News! But, & it’s a very big but, they will have time tocover up this scandallous issue by suprise suprise finding that they were right all along! The trend will be there somewhere I assure you. Maybe in good ol USA there may be confidence in impartiality, but here in the UK, there is very little. Terms of reference are everything, what will they actually look at? What will they actually review? Governments over here do this all the time, & low & behold, the Government is never found wanting for much, only minor trivia, someone will fall on their sword for the sake of completeness, then he/she will resurface somewhere high up as always, pension in tact, reputation in tact (MSM will eventiually say they just did the honorable thing but it wasn’t really their fault, etc.) Remember a government rarely admits it got it wrong, especially when it set out to decieve in the first instance, albeit for noble grounds of solving the world poverty issue. A lie, is a lie, is a lie, is a lie, & nothing but a lie! We shall see what turns up, hey?
good obama timing?
http://www.wetterzentrale.de/topkarten/fsavnmgeur.html
click on copenhagen and look at the temperature modells up to the 18th of dec.
looks good for obama, to see copenhagen in record freezing…
I don’t blame people for being “skeptical” :), but I think this is unalloyed good news. I want to know the truth as closely as we can determine it. If they are right, cap and tax makes sense. I don’t think they are right, and my bet is that this re-analysis will show the thirties were warmer.
To me it sounds like they are going to get copies of the original historic data right from the different sources. If this is so (and it’s the only way they can guarantee transparency) the they have a big job on.
The data will be in lots of different formats, and many joins will have to be made, and I would even expect some of the data will still be in paper form. Hopefully they are planning to review the base assumption about how to ingratiate it up to a global measure, I can see why it’s going to take them at least 3 years.
This operation will live and die by how transparent it is. Everything involved in the exercise will need to be available in the public domain, so their work can be checked by independent replication. Otherwise it will be a waste of time.
I think the Met Office are just trying to protect the reputation/future of climate science, rather than trying to stage another whitewash.
“The Met Office is confident that its analysis will eventually be shown to be correct. ”
I wish the Met Office would not prejudge the outcome.
Will they also pressure the analysts towards their prejudiced outcome?
Or will the analysts already hold that view?
“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.”
If the Met Office had really had a Damascene conversion, wouldn’t they admit that, even with their shiny new £30M Supercomputer being programmed by someone who was competent at his job and with Anthony Watts on one side and Steve McIntyre on the other, NOBODY could “state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012” or any other end date.
And if God drew the ‘true’ data across the sky in letters of celestial fire, it wouldn’t prove that CO2 was causing warming. And even if God remembered to put a footnote to the effect that (despite all the evidence) really it WAS CO2, it wouldn’t be good evidence that human CO2 emissions were responsible.
Before anyone gets too excited about what the Met Office may or may not do, check out this fabulous link:-
http://www.ftconferences.com/event/pdfs/63/cBrochure/0_Environmental%20Brochure%20Final.pdf?PHPSESSID=e280bb6ed50368812a076f060ec0fe07
This is the programme of a junket given by FT / Citi Private Bank:-
“We are delighted to welcome you to the 2007 FT / Citi Private Bank Environmental Awards Dinner.
“Tonight, for the first time, we will recognise businesses small and large from across the world that are leading the way in reducing their impact on climate change, by cutting their greenhouse gas emissions.
“Thanks to many recent advances in climate change science, which our special guest tonight Robert Watson will speak about later, we now know much more about the kind of adverse impacts that our reliance on fossil fuels are likely to bring about.
“There can now be no doubt that businesses, along with individuals and governments, must bear responsibility for the increase in greenhouse gas emissions that is threatening to destabilise the world’s climate, and businesses, governments and individuals must all play their part in reducing their carbon output.
“Tonight we will celebrate those businesses that have played a leading part in cutting their carbon dioxide, from small privately run businesses to multinational companies and household names. Every business can do something to cut its emissions, and doing so can bring wide-ranging benefits, not just to the climate but in energy savings, product innovation, staff motivation and customer outreach.
“We have been delighted with the response to our awards, and we hope that the example of the businesses that we highlight here tonight will help other companies to follow suit, and show that what is good for the climate can also be good for business.”
Yes, that IS Robert Watson, Chair of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Director for Strategic Development Tyndall Center, Chief Scientific Advisor to Defra. Our Bob gave the keynote speech and awarded the main prize.
And who was one of the judges and gave out the prize for Europe, Middle East & Africa? Why, none other than Robert Napier, Chairman of the Board, The Met Office!
We learn:-
“Robert Napier has been Chairman of the Board of the Met Office since October 2006.
“He retired as Chief Executive of the international conservation group WWF-UK in April 2007 after eight years in that post. Prior to WWF, Robert had a commercial career and was Chief Executive of Redland PLC from 1991 to 1997. He has served as a non-executive director of Rentokil Initial PLC and of
United Biscuits PLC and as President of the Council of Building Materials and as Chairman of the CBI Transport Policy Committee.
“Robert is currently a non-executive director of Anglian Water and of English Partnerships. He is a Trustee of the Carbon Disclosure Project; of WCMC 2000; of the South Georgia Heritage Trust; of the Baynards Zambia Trust and of the Watts Gallery. He is Chairman of the Green Fiscal Commission and of the
Governors of Sedbergh School.”
Check out the other Glitterati who were on the top table! Salivate at the menu! Imagine the Citi Bank investment advice! Picture the Profits! Imagine the Prophets!
This doesn’t say it all about Bob Napier, of course.
Check out:-
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4124
for Christopher Booker’s take on Bob & his Met Office.
So how likely is it that we will see any revelations from that quarter? And if we did and Gordon Brown saw the light and decided not to wreck what remains of the economy after all, how likely is it that his masters in Brussels would let him change tack?
No, we still have a huge mountain to climb. Remember, it isn’t the science that is driving this. And AGW is way, way, way too big to fail.