While this is encouraging news, releasing a subset will fuel some suspicion. A better choice would be to release the entire set. It may be too little, too late, the die of public opinion has been cast. Had they done this six months ago, they would have appeared visionary, rather than reactionary. The most encouraging news is the statement: “We intend that as soon as possible we will also publish the specific computer code…”. I applaud that, and I hope they do a better job than NASA GISS did, whose code is so esoteric, it is difficult to get running. Many have tried, one may have succeeded. – Anthony
From the Met Office Press Release:
Release of global-average temperature data
05 December 2009
The Met Office has announced plans to release, early next week, station temperature records for over one thousand of the stations that make up the global land surface temperature record.
This data is a subset of the full HadCRUT record of global temperatures, which is one of the global temperature records that have underpinned IPCC assessment reports and numerous scientific studies. The data subset will consist of a network of individual stations that has been designated by the World Meteorological Organisation for use in climate monitoring. The subset of stations is evenly distributed across the globe and provides a fair representation of changes in mean temperature on a global scale over land.
This subset is not a new global temperature record and it does not replace the HadCRUT, NASA GISS and NCDC global temperature records, all of which have been fully peer reviewed. We are confident this subset will show that global average land temperatures have risen over the last 150 years.
This subset release will continue the policy of putting as much of the station temperature record as possible into the public domain.
We intend that as soon as possible we will also publish the specific computer code that aggregates the individual station temperatures into the global land temperature record.
As soon as we have all permissions in place we will release the remaining station records – around 5000 in total – that make up the full land temperature record. We are dependant on international approvals to enable this final step and cannot guarantee that we will get permission from all data owners.
UEA fully supports the Met Office in making this data publicly available and is continuing to work with the Met Office to seek the necessary permission from national data owners to publish, as soon as possible as much of the data that we can gain permission for.
I would be interested to know what the selection criteria for these 1,000 stations is. Presumably someone has been crunching the numbers over the last few weeks and selecting those that have warmed the most!
This will improve trust and is a much needed part of the reconciliation between alarmists and realists.
Let’s hope they make it available and clear enough so that any one of us can replicate it if we so desire.
We just need some time to clean up those pesky code comments.
You write “six moths ago”. Are they responsible for the holes in the data?
REPLY: fixed thanks – A
So do they or do they not have the raw data? The story changes every day from them. Releasing adjusted data is useless. What are we going to do with that? Back calculate the raw data?
Was any of this data requested in a FOIA and will it be useful or is it just a rerelease of a Martin and Lewis comedy record from the 50’s?
It has to be the whole set. A subset will not dispell the obvious argument: “Is this a carefully selected subset?”
Code snipet from release data:
if(T[t+1]>T[t]) {Release_temperature(T[t+1]}
else {}
I’m losing track of which records have which problems.
If this is the raw data they’re talking about, then this seems to be a tacit admission that Jones lied about their destroying it. Am I missing something?
Oh I forgot Gordon will personally review the stations on the DVD’s he got from Obama.
BTW, showing the last 150 years has warmed is a red herring. WE KNOW THAT! What we don’t know is what’s responsible for it, and the emails/code from CRU show definitively it’s not CO2. Not if you have to adjust the data that much to get it to fit…
MET office to realise all data .
Here is the seasonal temperature deviation for Central England, 10 year moving average 1650-2010 with the first & last 10 year redacted.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/CET.gif
BBC reports on IPCC error on dissapearance of glaciers by 2035.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8387737.stm
Looks like other scientists are now fed up and pointing out inaccuracies.
Has correlation finally superseded causation in “proving” catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”?
Sir Humphrey would be proud as he artfully shows in: How’s the environment? – Yes Minister – BBC comedy”
This requires that all the monitoring stations be evaluated so that it can be established that they are not located in heat islands or have any other unexpected outside influences affecting them.
Sadly i think many will be in areas that will compromise the data so the eventual report that will be forthcoming will be worthless.
Independent verification is required.
Where are the atmospheric CO2 monitoring stations located also?
Not near a couple of volcanoes are they?
To be honest, i dont think they can ever regain the trust of the public now, i certainly feel that whatever data is released will just be the massaged stuff all rehashed to make it look “right”.
Early next week release date. I wonder what else is going on at that time.
If they don’t release the raw data as well, the adjusted land-only 1000 stations could show something like 0.8C or more of warming. So, I hope they are truly trying to be impartial here.
I wish we could all stop using terms like “adjusted data”.
Data are the actual readings from the field instruments. Once someone starts playing with the data, it becomes “un-data” (frequently otherwise referred to as the “global surface temperature record”).
I believe the climate science community knows how to collect accurate data. I do not understand why it chooses not to do so.
Velly Intellesting! (Apologies to Artie Johnson)
Are the Met Office aware of unintended consequences?
Anthony. A question that is referred to above and elsewhere. And I guess you won’t want to reply. Fine. I understand. Musing aloud …
So how does this affect the release of “surface stations” … the near-final report? If it is shown (by you and colleagues) that surface stations spew skewed temperatures (UHI and poor placement) then there really is NO trustworthy global data set.
I am a worrier [self snip], and if global temp data is inherently flawed, then the “new data” will show warming where none or little exists.
OT: Raging blizzard across Alberta today! Inuit don’t have a single work for snow. I on the other hand have several words for snow today..but this is a family show. ☺ ☺
Best,
Clive
I wonder if these are the stations located on parking lots or near A/Cs?
[OT comment, but too much fun not to post]
OOOPSY!!!!
Another warmist myth bites the dust:
“Dutch: Gore Wrong on Snows of Kilimanjaro”
“Newspapers and news sites in the Netherlands today extensively broke the news of the findings of a research team led by Professor Jaap Sinninghe Damste — a leading molecular paleontologist at Utrecht University and winner of the prestigious Spinoza Prize — about the melting icecap of the Kilimanjaro, the African mountain that became a symbol of anthropogenic global warming.
Professor Sinninghe Damste’s research, as discussed on the site of the Dutch Organization of Scientific Research (DOSR) — a governmental body — shows that the icecap of Kilimanjaro was not the result of cold air but of large amounts of precipitation which fell at the beginning of the Holocene period, about 11,000 years ago.
The melting and freezing of moisture on top of Kilimanjaro appears to be part of “a natural process of dry and wet periods.” The present melting is not the result of “environmental damage caused by man.”
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/dutch-gore-wrong-on-snows-of-kilimanjaro/
Al Gore loses again.
And only for land stations?
Forget hadcrut. For the purposes of Science, it doesn’t exist. But the cover up does.
No one disputes the fact of warming (possibly now ceased) but rather the contribution of human emissions to it.
For 30 years we had a succession of pwerful El Nino events and an active sun.
Do they still deny that those factors had anything to do with the warming when they seem to blame the current pause (or cooling) on a strong La Nina and a weak sun ?
The entire AGW theory was predicated on the absence of an alternative cause other than human CO2.
They don’t even seem to have included an estimate of the reduction of the oceanic absorption of CO2 as a result of all those warm sea surface events.
Whatever the ‘audited’ data or computer code reveals they have no means of separating natural variability from anthropogenic causes.
We have to know their relative scales before coming to any conclusion that avoidance measures are economic or practical.
What they should do is ditch CO2 emissions as a significant issue and just concentrate on improved energy use and production via research and incentives. That will deliver what we really need at the earliest practical moment and the side effect of emissions reduction would be adequate to satisfy the precautionary principle.
In addition do all we can to encourage voluntary population restraint and clean up real pollution.
And if we must have a world government let it be created cautiously by consent with proper checks and balances rather than in a rush forced by unreasoning fear from fantastical speculations.
The whole CO2 panic reminds me of the effect of the first broadcast of War of the Worlds but with modern media the whole thing has gone so much further.
The fictional Martians were destroyed by bacteria. Perhaps the warming effect of more CO2 in the air is adequately neutralised by another feature of the Earth system. My favourite candidate is a speeded up hydrological system as I have explained in detail elsewhere.
OK, a thousand.
How many do they use in total?
What are the selection criteria?
Why a subset rather than all?
Good stuff anyway. We will see from running the code with the 1000 how well it matches CRU output.
Also How about a WUWT team effort to select and collect station data from the net? Pick ten each and get going from Jan 1st 2010. Screen scraping scripts anyone?
Is it just me, or does this announcement make things worse for these people?
Note the new line we are going to be pushing both from the Met Office and from the “a**ho*e” Watson in his interview last night.
“The important thing is whether or not the earth has warmed in the last 150 years” (Watson)
“We are confident this subset will show that global average land temperatures have risen over the last 150 years.” (Met Office)
Only a paranoid would detect the hand of F****n Communications in here somewhere.
Unless we crack this one on the head soonest it will grow legs (sorry for the mixed metaphor). We KNOW the earth has warmed over the last 150 years and it would help if we spread the message as widely as possible that this is a GOOD THING! Would you rather be cold and hungry and die young?
What is actually important is:
1. Whether the maximum land temperatures have risen over the last 150 years or only the minima (which will raise the average, obviously) because that must make a difference to the likely effect of the observed increase;
2. Whether any of this increase can reasonably be traced to increased CO2 levels through observation rather than through computer models progammed to assume a) that CO2 is a climate driver and b) that it then enhances the warming through positive feedback;
3. Whether there is is any reason to assume on the basis of observations (as opposed to the model output) that this warming is in any material way different from the warming that caused any of the last three major warm periods (Mediaeval, Roman and Minoan) and therefore whether there is any reason for us to “take action” as opposed to enjoying the warmth while we have it because it won’t be around for long.
At the moment the warmists are on the back foot. Give them the chance to invent a new message, which this would suggest they are already doing, and things will certainly be “worse than previously thought”. The realists need an efficient PR machine of their own because that is the way the world works unfortunately.
“Truth will always out” is for the long term, like the 50-50 chance of heads; we don’t have that luxury when the opposition are using a weighted coin.
“We are confident this subset will show that global average land temperatures have risen over the last 150 years”
This statement above says much about their intentions. They want to show that temperatures have risen over the last 150 years (and they’re confident that they have) and this new subset will most probably contain stations selected to show this the most. The problem, though, is that whether temperatures will show a clear increase or not, it will still be not clear if the culprit is anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
It seems to me that they’re silently implying that any visible rise in temperatures will automatically mean that anthropogenic emissions are involved.
Anyway, I hope they will make public all the following:
– Raw data (as it comes out the instruments)
– Annotated adjusted data (with explanation of how and why adjustment was necessary)
– Full station metadata, including recent site photographs if available and location history (if the station has been moved)
– Computer code
I’m sorry, but this looks like a cover up:
“We are confident this subset will show that global average land temperatures have risen over the last 150 years.”
=> this is suppose to be ‘data’ not ‘results’ and
“…does not replace the HadCRUT, NASA GISS and NCDC global temperature records, all of which have been fully peer reviewed.”
=> it isn’t the ‘data’ that should be reviewed but rather the ‘experimental measurement methodology’ and the data it yielded. I have yet to see validation of the methodology except what Anthony has so graciously done.
This is a joke, not science and I am
LOL in Oregon
Is there any chance of being able to do site surveys on some of these stations? It would be interesting to see how these stations are sited, what their historical records show, and then the future raw data records vs. the groomed data output.
I humbly suggest we begin a call for the release of all Met Office Data, immediately (and updates, as they become available).
While it may take the Met Office three years (to do whatever they plan on doing), I suggest those of us in the blogosphere would take a good deal less time to find flaws in (or to corroborate) the data sets.
Let’s call for transparency (THREE YEARS??? Indeed).
Again, it doesn’t matter how evenly distributed the stations are, if they are poorly maintained and or poorly situated, as is the problem for about 90% of the USA data, the data is of little value unless it can be corrected properly, which can only happen if there has been a proper and complete station survey! You can’t correct data unless you know the condition of the data! See USA problems at: http://wattsupwiththat.com/test/
Stephen
It looks like the initial list of 1000 stations (that they are probably talking about) was chosen by Phil Jones, Thomas Peterson (both of Climategate fame) and Harald Daan (from the WMO).
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/hofn/gsn/gsnselection.pdf
In nearly any other context, making data sets and tools of this sort available for public evaluation and feedback would be seen as a tremendous example of citizen science, crowd-sourcing, and public engagement. Look at fold.it or seti@home or the genome browser as examples. Independent review is a hallmark of public science. It is essential when scientists set up to be advisers on public policy.
Nothing will be free of manipulation risk even after the full set of data has been released. At this point, who is there to confirm that any data that is released is in fact raw data and has not been manipulated?
There are too many emerging nations who would benefit from global warming reallocations and who would gladly provide false numbers because it is in their best interests to do so.
Climate science will not be trusted until all of the advocates are purged from the system and are replaced with objective, skeptical (in a professional sense) and qualified scientists.
What ever happened to IPRs, confidentiality agreements, availability only to academics, FOIA exemptions, availability from other sources etc?
“global temperature records, all of which have been fully peer reviewed.” Come, come; we say “crony reviewed” nowadays.
The question is not if it has warmed since the 1850’s.
The question is if this warming is prelude to a catastrophic change in climate patterns, driven by CO2, in the future.
We know that the past warming did nothing dangerous to climate patterns.
We know that the warming has been minor.
We have a theory, called AGW for short, that claims this warming is a clear proof of danger to come.
The question whether or not the theory is proven.
I believe the answer is clearly ‘no’.
If an honest review and release of the data is made, I believe it will at best be ambiguous regarding AGW. But an honest release is highly doubtful, since those controlling the data, reviewing the data and releasing the data are all the same people, and have decades of vested interest in AGW.
A clear indication of the insincerity of the Met office, is their assertion that they can review and release 160 years of data in a week.
That is the time it takes to write a serious press release, not to do a serious review of 160 years of data.
Didn’t read the other comments yet, but are they releasing the “homoginized” records or the actual raw data? Publishing altered data that meets an agenda could be misleading.
Looking at the UEA site shows that they really shouldn’t have got themselves into this mess should they? It was pretty clearly laid out for them. Sample below, but it’s all at the link. Capitalisation is theirs not mine:-
http://www.uea.ac.uk/is/foi/guidance
5 key facts that all staff should know about Freedom of Information
•The Act gives everyone both in and outside UEA a right of access to ANY recorded information held by UEA
•A request for information must be answered within 20 working days
•If you receive a request for information which mentions FOI, is not information you routinely provide, is unusual, or you are unsure of, you should pass the request to your FOIA contact or the Information Policy and Compliance Manager
•You should ensure that UEA records are well maintained and accessible to other staff, so that they can locate information needed to answer a request when you are not there
•As all documents and emails could potentially be released under the Act, you should ensure that those you create are clear and professional
Do you trust them? the met office is part of the defence ministry, so all the salaries,pensions are in the gift of the govt of the day.They will interfere and manipulate as they always do.Power and money, what a mix! Ask tiger!
Surely something they can do immediately is release the list of stations they use. Given the new commitments to openness, there can be no reason for withholding this information
The 7th cavalry is riding to the rescue of AGW in the form of none other than the UN: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8397265.stm
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said it was “firmly” standing by findings that a rise in the use of greenhouse gases was a factor.”
“Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the scientific evidence was “very clear” and called doubters a “flat Earth group”.
He said: “There is an anti-change group. There is an anti-reform group. There is an anti-science group, there is a flat Earth group, if I may say so, over the scientific evidence for climate change.” I wonder if he was talking about himself and Ed. Miliband?
I notice that no one esle has yet but this “releasing” of a subset was one of the stalling tactics that Phil Jones considered when dealing with Steve. Hmm makes one wonder if the Met office put Phil to work over there.
I believe PM Brown is the founding member of the Flat Head group.
Who really believes that the data released has not been “value added”?
Will anyone check the original station records to see how reliable the released data is?
Will Sir Muir, an ethically challenged AGW advocate really do an in depth investigation of climategate or will he just whitewash the whole thing?
150 years. Since that is about the time we have been coming out of the little ice age, it shows to me they are still cherry picking data.
I simply can’t believe they’re on the up and up with this. Any data released has probably been tampered with. They’ll release false data, painting the picture they want the skeptics to see and then they’ll be able to say “See … it really is warming”.
“We are confident this subset will show that global average land temperatures have risen over the last 150 years. ”
That’s an interesting choice of words – we know they’ve risen over 150 years. More interesting is whether they’ve risen (and/or how much) over 100 years or 75 years.
John Peter (10:59:46) :
I have been thinking about Gordon Brown’s motives all day since I first read the “flat earth” comments in th Daily Telegraph. At first I took it very personally, and felt insulted at being called a “flat earther” and “anti science”.
Then I reflected that if all the other sceptics out there took it personally, then Gordon was alienating a large chunk of the voting public who think like me, so it probably wasn’t such a bad thing.
Then I decided that since he was using inappropriate metphors (flat earthers were the concensus view and curved earthers were the sceptics; sceptics are concerned about the real science and warmist seem to be trying to pervert it) the the joke was on him.
Then I finally realised that what he was really doing was to insult Lord Lawson, who had recently set up a global warming think tank and had published his new sceptical book. For the benefit of younger readers and non-Brits, Lord Lawson was a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer, who held the record as longest serving chancellor until Gordon beat him. I suspect there is little love lost between the two, and we are lead to believe that Gordon is a vindictive man.
@Phil A (12:02:57) :
“We are confident this subset will show that global average land temperatures have risen over the last 150 years. ”
Yeah that struck me too, then I thouhgt they can’t still believe that anyone that doesn’t believe in AGW then in turn doesn’t believe in GW. If they do boy will they be in for a shock when they go see its warming and the Sceptics “Yep now prove man caused it”. Its like hardwired in these people that any warming has to be Man made warming (Well of course they only apply that for the last 100 years).
“…this subset will show that global average land temperatures have risen over the last 150 years…”
But what will the REST of the data show?
If they have to pick out a subset of stations to show their “proof”, than wouldn’t you like to see the results of the data not used?
Remember it was only one magic tree from Briffa at Yamal that all of the papers were built on. Couldn’t that have been called a “subset” of the tree ring data?
*************************
Akira Shirakawa (08:19:01) :
“We are confident this subset will show that global average land temperatures have risen over the last 150 years”
This statement above says much about their intentions. They want to show that temperatures have risen over the last 150 years (and they’re confident that they have) and this new subset will most probably contain stations selected to show this the most. The problem, though, is that whether temperatures will show a clear increase or not, it will still be not clear if the culprit is anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
********************************
They know they are throwing this data to a pack of hungry dogs. It better be good data or they are simply setting themselves up for another round of embarrassment.
“We are confident this subset will show that global average land temperatures have risen over the last 150 years. ”
So they selected just enough to make this true? And what about UHI effects? We have a local weather guy who reports on the temperature from the airport runways downtown, and the beach goers wonder why it’s always colder at the beaches. Good for tourism.
The public is beginning to seriously suspect it’s all one big green scam. And this will do nothing in the public minds eye but further that belief — the only hope is to release everything, fast, and then spend years trying to figure out if there is anything salvageable in the pile.
If real science doesn’t abandon this sinking ship quick, they will go down with it.
What isn’t needed is another Dan Rather episode, “fake but accurate”.
If you’re sceptical about the quality of the data, make the case. McIntyre did it without the “training” of a climate scientist. For the sake of scientific integrity please get to this very important work.
I am not a scientist – just an interested layman, and a very old one. I am not a mathematician, but I went to school. I am not a statistician, but I can handle statistics very much better than seems to have been the case at CRU. I am not a programmer, but within limits I can write the simple programme necessary to handle basic statistics.
I am not so simple as to think that I, or anyone else, can analyse something so large and chaotic as the climate and reduce it to a single line on a graph, more especially when this is governed primarily by that great ball of fire up in the sky, and that great ball of seething magnetic plasma beneath our feet.
But, give me measured temperature records, free from all smoothing, free from all noise adjustments, just raw records, from no more than one hundred sites around the world and provided that they are picked at random from all such records available, I will be able to confirm to myself whether there has been any actual warming at all. That is what I really want to know and I need not much more than simple arithmetic to establish matters to my own satisfaction.
If data is not genuinely randomly selected, it is worthless for any statistical process. Accordingly, I shall not concern my self with any subset of available data. Before I start worrying about bristle cone pines, which I can only assume like most plant life are far more susceptible to such things as the availability of moisture, nitrogen and ultraviolet light than they are to temperature per se, I want to be sure that a real temperature problem exists.
If there be such a problem, before I start advising my grandchildren and great grandchildren what they should do about it, I shall try to figure out why my particular little spot on the planet has shown no sign whatever of being a participant.
Based on Anthony’s fine investigation of hundreds of stations, we can’t trust the data. Based on the internal events and discussions, we can’t trust them with the data.
Based on the Rag tag band of carbon protestors. we can’t trust them to comply with the FOIA and realeasing only some files, says they are still cheating,
You guys are pretty funny — did not you know there are other data sets on the planet that also show the temp’s rising? You are a bunch of fools!
Speaking of manipulation – pretty funny you used the 1998 El Nino year to try to show cooling. You are BUSTED! HEY MSM How bout them apples. Yo want to play lets play!
WHO gives a Rats ASS if one of three data sets were (allegedly) tampered with — does not CHANGE A THING – ZERO (go a head and graph that one!).
CO2 still arisin and so is the temp – you fools. with this moderate El Nino year – expecting hottest Temp. EVER that EVER for the stupid!
The even funnier thing is those other data sets FREE – you freaking idiots!
You are not climate scientists – you are nut’s and connected by ideology, or big oil the whole lot of yah and nobody listens to you. – stop masquerading as if you know anything about climate science!!
97% of the climatologists that leaves you with 3% enjoy your minority – and suck on that, so my my grandchildren won’t
Reply: Cue Pipe Organ Playing Also sprach Zarathustra and E. M. Smith. ~ ctm
And why has it taken this long? And why should we trust these people now? And why not fire the lot and start again with a totally new, impartial review mandate? Oh, and how do we get our bloody money back???
What remains now from the alarmist scientists is to show us how 3% of .0388 CO2 raises the temperature globally. Or anywhere on our planet.
[snip- bogus email address – policy violation]
I also notice on your web site that is “supposedly science oriented” that you cover Mar’s all very fine, HMMM but what other relatively nearby planets are missing????? how about our other neighbor y’know its the other planet — it’s called Venus — Hey why the omission????? WHERE’s VENUS???
Could that be because there is go ahead say it, say it, say it — GLOBAL WARMING — All due to what? CO2 that’s 97% CO2 non manipulated CO2 — hey guess what the temp. is on the surface of Venus – go ahead – take a wild guess?
Here’s the goods on Venus you complete fools!
The CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System, creating surface temperatures of over 460 °C (860 °F).[32] This makes Venus’s surface hotter than Mercury’s which has a minimum surface temperature of -220 °C and maximum surface temperature of 420 °C,[33] even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury’s distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury’s solar irradiance.
Did you get that???? Or are you ignoring this?
Studies have suggested that several billion years ago Venus’s atmosphere was much more like Earth’s than it is now, and that there were probably substantial quantities of liquid water on the surface, but a runaway greenhouse effect was caused by the evaporation of that original water, which generated a critical level of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere.
Bummer — Sure hope that does not happen on our planet don’t we! Maybe some on this web site who are no more than posers could care less in their zeal to mud up those who do care?
To the editor — email; me I dare yah and yes I practice in science – weather and no my climatology pretty damn well.
Roger (13:53:47) :
Note roger’s unhappy tone – ad hom attacks, appeal to authority, avoidance of the fact all three data bases use the same underlying source data and 700 highly qualified scientists (climate scientist seen as Madeoff with sliderule?) who dispute the AGW theory.
Yes, CO2 goes up. Yes the temp has risen. The time to demonstrate causality has expired.
Once the list of 1000 sites is released, someone could begin assessing the quality of the sites using the same criteria as those used at surfacestations.org . One of the advantages of the internet is that it can join together the efforts of hundreds of people scattered around the globe. It would take time, but the information would be invaluable in understanding how useful the raw data is.
My letter to the Met Office
Sir, Madam,
I am at a loss to hear today that the Met Office is going to release 100 sets of raw temperature data. Firstlly, I understood that the Hadley Climate Research Unit (from their spokesmen) had destroyed the data; but then they are not sure about that.
However, releasing a selected few data sets will not calm the masses; you must release ALL the data, plus any processing algorithms and software code that you may have used on them as well. Anything less will be greeted with skepticism.
I’m pretty sure that the good folks at the Met Office thought they had a nice quiet little secure career job in a remote government department.
However, all hell seems to have broken loose: The BBQ summer didn’t occur – much to public ridicule; then the opprobrioum of Climate gate and now, they want to clear their names but hte government is telling them to release nothing.
Being as the Met Office has been round longer than the current government, they might win out.
How can Gordon Brown read science when it is well known from recent news that he can barely read, write and spell?
Roger could have saved some time and been much clearer if he had typed WHAAAAA!!!!
Further to my previous post, but I wanted to make the distinct point, the Crimatologists will make the argument (as Watson already has to that “ars_____”) that the temperature HAS risaen since 1860.
Our response must be:
“Yes, we already knew that, and don’t dispute that. However, this has nothing to do with AGW and CO2.”
150 years ago is an arbitary date. Why not look at the temperature record over the last 1000 years: it is colder today. Where is the proof that the warming since 1860 is due to increased CO2?
Roger (14:18:12) :
Two points about Venus:
1. It is considerably closer to the Sun and receives more W/m^^2 than the Earth – about twice.
2) Its atmosphere is considerably more massive.
If you look at these graphs http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm you will notice that, at an altitude where the pressure of the venusian atmosphere is roughly that of Earth’s, the temperatures are comparable.
It is hotter on the surface of Venus due to simple thermodynamics, not “greenhouse effect”.
BTW I used to believe that argument, until I studied the question a little more; I suggest you do the same Roger.
Roger (14:18:12) :
“To the editor — email; me I dare yah and yes I practice in science – weather and no my climatology pretty damn well.”
How can we know that you ‘no’ it so well?
The issue is the low level of scientific knowledge about the various factors which can affect climate. The Sherlock Holmes style deduction: “It can’t be this or that so it must be co2” is laughable. The concentration of the Met, Cru and their friends in the media on the rise in temperature is a
RED HERRING
Note roger’s unhappy tone –
Yeah note my unhappy tone – I’m unhappy with your reveling ignorant cowardice. You should be ashamed but your to ideological to know the difference. I speak for no one but myself and the future of this planet’s inhabitants from micro biology to certain mammals who fail to learn from their own mistakes. Yeah unhappy – damn straight!
>Yes, CO2 goes up. Yes the temp has risen. The time to demonstrate causality has expired. — Expired, excuse me?
– it was demonstrated in “1816” for Chris-sake.
For the simple minded CO2 + 220w/m2 solar irradience = bingo it warms and can be reproduced constantly on earth, in space it’s a physical law of nature – there is no doubt.
Proof is now here and and on say the planet you conveniently omit called Venus, out neighboring planet – 97% CO2 — they have convection/thunderstorms of sulfuric acid.
Not produced by humans? Well guess what is? Closing on 390 ppm’s, and you oh let’s just take it easy – does not get it done. adding more CO2 is not good and lackadaisical denial is criminal.
At some point the emission of CO2 will be jailed offense, if we don’t start to curb it through whatever means now. Stop the lies – The data sets speak the truth un-manipulated! Anyone who manipulates data should be shot! and it should be there for all to see as it pretty much is! this deviancy suggested is crap!
35 years in data acquisition, observation, I know what I’m talking about. Good solid science should rule all policy period! The data is there – it’s a disaster around the corner and what you or I say about it makes no difference. For you will be hearing about anthropogenic global warming the rest of your waking lives – you can’t do anything about that except try to slow it and eventually stop it.
to Robert Of Canada
Bummer sir Robert — can you count?
Mercury is the closest No? and COOLER by a long shot – Gee – now how that happen? it was magic?
Huh – kind of funny that the omitted planet = VENUS (amongst this web site which denies global warming) is warmer and it’s the second planet when the first is “ta da pipe organs please” Mercury with lots more watts per meter squared.
Buddy – how do compile that one? your’re busted!
Roger, me thinks you spend too much time at Wiki. The atmospheric pressure on Venus is much greater at the surface than it is on Earth and there are several theorist that suggest, on top of heat generated from surface pressure, that the concentration of CO2 on Venus (the overwhelming gas to the tune of 95%) cannot, even in our wildest dreams, ever approach the concentration on Earth, which is measured in parts per million, even if we release all the CO2 we have to burn or belch out. It has also been suggested that heat from catastrophic events, such as meteor showers or collisions with larger bodies, generated the heat that was then trapped by the heavy Venus blanket, and remains there today. In addition, it can be said with fairly accurate measurement data, that Venus is not now continuing to warm, nor has it in the recent past. Runaway greenhouse warming is NOT occurring on Venus.
By the way, though sulfuric acid clouds are VERY good at reflecting incoming short wave radiation from solar sources back into space, if heat is generated at the surface by volcanic or collision events, it is a very superior blanket for reflecting long wave heat coming from the surface back to the surface.
Your turn. Explain your understanding of Venus’ atmosphere and its heat.
I am just an armchair weather geek so your explanation should be stellar.
Roger sounds like a Hansen sock puppet.
…and do try to check your spelling. I am a teacher and typos are one thing, but misspelled words are another thing entirely.
To wit:
to
too
two
know
no
etc.
I doubt that the UK Met office will ever release all the data and code. If they’d wanted to, it would have been released already. It’s easy:
1. Create a public website
2. Click to upload
With the raw data we’re only talking about the equivalent of past weather reports here. It’s not like national security secrets are being disclosed. But as we can see, The Met office is already dragging its feet.
If/when they release anything, it will be totally cherry-picked and sanitized information — not the actual raw data, or their devious methods of massaging it. Even so, what they release will immediately raise more questions. That’s why they’re already delaying for years.
Total transparency of all the information that they based their CO2=CAGW conjecture on is required to satisfy skeptical scientists [the only honest kind of scientist] who operate according to the Scientific Method.
We’ll see what they select to publicly disclose. But it’s not a good sign that they’re already playing hide the weenie.
What I don’t understand is why they think it’s going to take them three years to have a look at this data. They presumably will have a team (Team) working on it, and they have access to some pretty impressive computing power.
To save themselves the time and trouble they could consult E.M. Smith, who has already done the necessary work along with a few willing volunteers, and discovered that even the modest increase in global average temperatures over the past century is not quite as it seems. It is transparently an artifact of variable thermometer numbers and siting over the years that has favoured a march towards the equator and to lower altitudes, with the programs processing the data not taking account of the fact.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/gistemp-a-human-view/
Dear Roger
Since everybody who breathes emits CO2 I think making CO2 emission a jailing offence may be somewhat impractical.
We should be more understanding of the level of disappointment that Roger is now feeling. It is very difficult to have all one’s hopes of a perfect society dashed so completely when his saints at CRU and UPenn were so close to success.
Obama will now have to prove that the “science” is settled before the EPA can impose CO2 regulation. The leaks have ended the tyranny of the IPCC and global socialism will now have to wait for the next manufactured crisis.
Victory was in their grasping fingers and the CRU leak has snatched it away.
Yes, we need to be more understanding of the poor simple folks like Roger who “believed” in the received wisdom of Al Gore.
Roger (15:19:24) :
to Robert Of Canada
Bummer sir Robert — can you count?
Roger, [snip], mercury has no atmosphere.
I will not bother with you any more. Rest in ignorance and pray to the Goracle that he will wrest you from said ignorance; I won’t.
“vukcevic (07:38:11) :
MET office to realise all data .
Here is the seasonal temperature deviation for Central England, 10 year moving average 1650-2010 with the first & last 10 year redacted.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/CET.gif”
Here’s the data direct from the MET:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/hadcet.html
The blue bars )I believe no smoothing) show some warming in the late20th century, but temperatures are now falling. The warming that occurred is about 1-1.5C, well within the range of UHI temperature effects for an area which has undergone massive urban development over the period. So, yes, we need to know the actual sites and what has happened there.
Some random Venus facts:
Surface pressure 9,210,000 pascals according to Seiff et al.’s 1986 Venus standard atmosphere; surface temperature 735.3 K. About as hot as a self-cleaning oven, they tell me.
Air 96.5% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen, 150 ppmv SO2, 30 ppmv or so H2O. But note that that’s 30 ppmv of an atmosphere much more massive than Earth’s. Venus’s trace water vapor is actually comparable in mass to that of Earth’s atmospheric water vapor (about half, as I recall).
Semimajor axis 0.72333 AUs, bolometric Bond albedo 0.750 according to NASA, which gives the Venus climate system a solar constant of 2,611 watts per square meter, an absorbed flux of 163 watts per square meter, and an equilibrium temperature of 232 K — colder than Earth’s equilibrium temperature!
Mass about 0.815 Earth masses, volumetric mean radius 6051.8 km.
Venus is the case of a runaway greenhouse effect. The temperature and pressure of the atmosphere decrease with height, so water vapor rises in the atmosphere and encounters conditions that cause it to condense back into liquid water and fall back to the surface – a region called the “cold trap.”
On Earth, this is at a height of 9-15 km (5-9 miles) above the surface at the Tropopause – where you can see anvils of Mature Cumulonimbus thunderstorm clouds, but on Venus it lies at an altitude around 50 km (31 miles) due to the planet’s closer proximity to the sun.
Water rises in Venus’ atmosphere and reaches this region, UV light dissociates it into two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. The hydrogen is much lighter than the water molecule was, and so it easily escapes Venus’ atmosphere. The water will usually quickly recombine with a carbon or carbon monoxide molecule to form carbon monoxide or “carbon dioxide” CO2. This is probably one reason why there is so much carbon dioxide in Venus’ atmosphere today.
To the point Pamela – This process is a runaway one in that once less water is available to wash CO2 from the atmosphere, the CO2 level rises. This results in a stronger greenhouse effect, “so the temperature rises”
This should not be a news bulletin and rather old science.
The higher temperature moves the cold trap higher, and the cycle continues at an accelerated rate because there is a larger region where water can become dissociated.
Due to level or expansion when heating occurs a rising “trop” is occurring with higher CO2.
Furthermore – Me thinks the ones who manipulated the data should be investigated and frankly with all of the available free GISS data NCDC etc, who else would be motivated to “throw such seeds of doubt” when the evidence is just breathtakingly overwhelming.
Whoa – Regional Temperatures Bloddy Egland) ARE NOT GLOBAL temp’s. We need to get that straight right away.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/graphs/HadCET_graph_ylybars_uptodate.gif
Furthermore – Meteorology and Climatology are not the same thing. Hundreds of Very cold days means nothing, just because it was cold where you are. We are talking planetary scale, time and space – big picture – good idea before you swallow to understand whats presented.
the other little tid bit that the mainstream press should take note is the manipulations using the “spike 1998 El Nino year” Normally they use 10 year increments – it interesting for those denialist to manipulate the data in such a way to make it look like it’s cooling – it bullshot – stop the masquerade, use 10 year increments – why are you people so afraid?
Let the data sets speak the truth and that is a warming continuance – there is no reason to lie.
Roger,
I’m not a climatologist, scientist, or anything of the like. (although I do possess a math degree).
But I’ve been reading this forum for awhile and I can tell you one thing: you are WAY out of your depth here. WAY, WAY out.
That hit-and-run crap science you’re trying to peddle here might work on the 13 year old boys that subscribe to your youtube channel, but there are some real pros here.
But please, please, PLEASE do NOT refrain from commenting here, as it helps to show us the depth of deception, as well as the massive void of critical thought, that populates a lot of your religion.
Sir Robert
On this we agree, but your denial that CO2 does not cause warming sheds all light necessary. It is why your comment
SNIP
pray to the Goracle that he will wrest you from said ignorance; I won’t.
SNIP
—– You see this is what it’s all about – it’s not climate science. It’s all about left – right.
It’s political ideology — it’s the fact that Albert Gore Jr. won the Nobel peace prize was vice president for 8 years without scandal and the presidential popular vote and almost the presidency.
This is what Anthropogenic Global Warming is all about. Thank you sir Robert. My point is made. Bravo – applause?
No we are heating the planet – how we go about stopping is matter of concern to all even the [snip] here on the web site!
Roger,
I’m not a climatologist, scientist, or anything of the like. (although I do possess a math degree).
This is not about me and you.
This is about for whatever reason the deniability (and it’s usually political, second only to economical) that we are undergoing anthropogenic global warming.
Hey Math degree, Engineer, Economist, Doctor, Lawyer, Dentistry – all very good – but anyone – anyone who can think logically would understand that a Math degree gives you very little understanding about earth relationships with long wave radiation, data acquisition, albedo or massive glacial melt or the thinning ice caps solar cycle 23 to 24, neutrinos all excluding the politics.
If someone wants brain surgery they don’t call in a DENTIST.
you are WAY out of your depth here. WAY, WAY out.
Pamela Gray (15:32:26) :
…and do try to check your spelling. I am a teacher and typos are one thing, but misspelled words are another thing entirely.
To wit:
to
too
two
Toowit towoo to you too. C’mon wise owl, Roger is doing quite well for a ten year old.
Quite interesting – WHY one has to change the subject to spelling OMG! When we are trying to educate “their climate science” – hoity toity to wit – ditheringly sickening indeed.
Sun rises in the west and it’s cold outside, must mean there’s no AGW universe rotates around given head – all about Them
Roger, invoking Venus into your argument to somehow prove that lots of CO2 = bad, can just as easily be dismissed by invoking Mars into the debate. Over 95% of Mars’ atmosphere is CO2 and yet it’s average temperature is below -60 degrees Celsius!
Now, in reality, both of the above arguments are completely flawed, because it’s not just the amount of CO2 that has to be taken into account. There are numerous other factors besides the absolute volume of atmospheric CO2 that determine air temperature. So please, please get educated and stop thinking that CO2 is bad! People expel CO2 with each exhale — do you think it’s wise to put everyone in prison???
Hmm. It would be easy to cherrypick the results. We really need the FULL and COMPLETE record.
Anthony –
Nobody is going to prison for exhaling! Be Serious. When you burn in this case “excess” fossil fuels dug from the ground which took eons, for heating, transportation, fun whatever, there are ramifications, and with the industrial revolution we have used the atmosphere as our OPEN SEWER. Rising CO2 can not dispute these facts. You still with me? We in the SWEET SPOT of climate since Younger Dryas – for too little CO2 just as bad. Now we have to much and ehre then is the debate in a nut shell. to claim that CO2 (laughable) does not cause warming – we would not have the atmosphere we have – so funny – it is so pathetic)
390 ppms CO2 Add incoming solar insolation = rising temp’s – not rocket science here pretty simple – before we go into all the feed backs of the planet, high water vapor = greater precipitation extremes, where it’s cold you get more snow = Antarctica, highest elevations, but 70% of that warming goes into the oceans (20 year lag) albedo and run away methane – now there’s a topic – if you want to educate.
Please Anthony it’s not that CO2 is even bad. Too much of it is. TOO MUCH OF IT IS, and to parade this deniability is frankly crazy.
the politics of what to do about it – that’s for the right and left to decide debate but to DENY the very existence of the record is CRAZY.
Do you think they are manipulating the Greenland glaciers – of course not.
and i would like to raise something else – I know a lot about ASOS and the aspirators actually “cool” the surface air by 2’F. if there’s a bias it’s cooling not warming.
roger
vukcevic (07:38:11) :
Here is the seasonal temperature deviation for Central England, 10 year moving average 1650-2010 with the first & last 10 year redacted.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/CET.gif
If it’s a moving average then there should only be 10years centred on the date averaged. This allows you to use up to 4years 11months from ends:
http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/4950/centralenglandtemp120mn.png
“You still with me?”
Yeah. But the human effect could be minute. Put into modelrama machines the unadjusted temperature data, and the undisputed CO2 record, and you will see.
But, then, that finishes off scary global warming and cuts off the big money.
No serious threat, no money. Same in any security bureaucracy, they hype, “adjust” that on which they make money. Or is the Climate Science industry pure and unique?
“If someone wants brain surgery they don’t call in a DENTIST. ”
If one wants sophisticated statistical analysis, does one call in a “CLIMATE SCIENTIST” or a DENDROCHRONOLOGIST or a STATITICIAN?
Your argument is off base, newbieish. Few doubt CO2 changes might do something, but many smelled it was exaggerated. Starting with the non-disclosure of data.
“What I don’t understand is why they think it’s going to take them three years to have a look at this data”
Politics. Kyoto must be renewed or ditched in 2012. They are taking a “dunno” response, hoping to bluff it through, rather than blow it away for sure with new findings of lower temps which destroy the modelings and carbon pricing forecasts.
Anthony,
Maybe this has been brought up in a prior post, but have you done any out-reach to countries that have the largest number of surface stations and asked them to undertake what you’ve done with surfacestations? Even if it’s a handful, it will buttress what you’ve been doing to validate or falsify the temperature database.
Yeah, I know – on top of everything you’ve been doing, like you really need this.
Roger,
You claim “… not that CO2 is even bad. Too much of it is. TOO MUCH OF IT IS,”
How much is “too much” and what is the basis for your claim ?
Since mammals have walked the earth, CO2 levels have been 7 times as high as at present, without any “bad” consequence.
—————————
Matt,
“… showing the last 150 years has warmed is a red herring. WE KNOW THAT!”
There is evidence of global warming from the Little Ice Age up around 1940. Warming beyond that it is questionable. Briffa, (the guy responsible for much of the warmist “alarm”) in his 1998 paper shows cooling after 1940. Cooling, despite the massive increase in fossil fuel burning after 1945.
Hadcrut is meaningless because of the strong UHI component.
It’s not too little too late unless one’s context is so narrow as say public opinion for Copenhagen.
Look, the reality is scientifically we probably still have a many year hard slog ahead of us on a variety of issues related to climate warming, natural variation, land use changes, C02, aerosols, etc. . . any improvement of transparency will pay dividends for all over time.
Roger,
It seems that you are trying to assure us that most definitely rising CO2 leads to rising temps, and it seems that for you it’s a given.
Once again, I’m not a climatologist, so help me out in math terms, where your assertion is that:
INCREASE CO2 = INCREASE TEMPS
Given you theory, then this would also have to be true
IF CO2 (2009) > CO2 (2001)
THEN TEMP (2009) > TEMP (2001)
Now, we know the CO2 is greater since 2001, but are the temps? No, they are pretty flat or slightly falling.
Ergo, your original assumption is wrong. (Or, to be exact, it can not be proved from the given data)
QED
“Its like hardwired in these people that any warming has to be Man made warming (Well of course they only apply that for the last 100 years).”
That’s really struck me too. Here’s what I posted on another thread yesterday:
Reading the statement from Whitehall, it hit me that the warmers are reasoning that since the earth has been warming in recent decades, and since CO2 has been also, the latter is the cause of the first. It also hit me that they think that if warming occurs, something must be forcing it to happen; it couldn’t just happen on its own.
Somehow it had never struck me so forcefully that they are sincerely in the clutches of such a simplistic paradigm, since it has so often been criticized here and in other contrarian writings. They’re obstinately thinking in terms of a mechanistic model. They really haven’t come to grips with the concept of climate being an inherently unstable, dynamic, chaotic system with an elusive equilibrium point and lots of internal cycles created by chasing that equilibrium. They can’t see that the current uptrend could be just one of those cycles.
Along with this goes a “Gawdsaker” / reformist mentality: “For Gawd’s sake, do something!” (H.G. Well’s term.) Intrusive, controlling, alarmist, dirigiste. Put them together and you’ve got a censorious CRUsade.
PS: Given their mental model, they somehow think that contrarians are denying that it’s warming. (We are only claiming that warming has been overstated, not that it isn’t there.)
Their mental model also accounts for their claim that thousands of scientists support their CAWG thesis, when all that the majority of them are supporting is the fact that the globe has been warming. To the CAWGers, global warming = CAWG, since they believe that warming must be “forced” by some factor, and that as long as that factor increases, so must the warming.
Our future critiques of the warmists must heavily stress this basic, overly simplistic mental model of theirs. We’ve stressed it already, but apparently it needs to be brought more emphatically front and center.
“Albert Gore Jr. won the Nobel peace prize was vice president for 8 years without scandal …”
Not quite. Here are a few interesting quotes from the book, The Stupidest Things Ever Said by Politicians:
On Illegal Fund-Raisers at Buddhist Temples, Al Gore on:
Explanation number 1: It wasn’t a fund-raiser, it was a “community outreach event.”
Explanation number 2: It wasn’t a fund-raiser, it was just “finance-related.”
Explanation number 3: It wasn’t a fund-raiser, it was a “donor-maintenance meeting.”
There’s also this amusing tidbit:
On Historical Knowledge, Vice-Presidential:
“Who are these guys?”
Al Gore, referring to the busts of Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, and Lafayette on a televised tour of Monticello. (p. 109)
And this:
“A zebra cannot change its spots.” (p. 54)
And this:
On Senator’s Sons, Typical Days of:
“[My father] taught me how to clean out hog waste with a shovel and a hose. He taught me how to clear land with an ax. He taught me how to plow a steep hillside with a team of mules. He taught me how to take up hay all day long in the hot sun and then, after a dinner break, go help the neighbors take up hay before the rain came and spoiled it on the ground.”
Vice President Al Gore on the virtues of farm life, not mentioning that, as a rich senator’s son, all this was presumably learned on summer vacation from Harvard. A real farmer’s son, Republican National chairman Jim Nicholson, replied, “Mr. Vice President, with all due respect, you’re shoveling a lot more of it right now than you ever did back then.” (p. 141)
And this:
On Timing is Everything:
“[Due to pollution, cars pose] a mortal threat to the security of every nation.”
Senator Al Gore in his 1992 book, Earth in the Balance.
“Here in Motor City we recognize that cars have done more than fuel our commerce. Cars have freed the American spirit and given us the chance to chase our dreams.”
Vice President Al Gore — while gearing up for his 2000 presidential run — in a 1999 speech to the Economic club of Detroit. (p. 253)
“Roger (14:18:12) :
I also notice on your web site that is “supposedly science oriented” that you cover Mar’s all very fine, HMMM but what other relatively nearby planets are missing????? how about our other neighbor y’know its the other planet — it’s called Venus — Hey why the omission????? WHERE’s VENUS??? ”
Roger, you are flogging a dead horse. *sigh* Are you comparing Earth and Venus, CO2 content and “run-away” GH effect? That’s a pile of doo-doo from said horse my friend.
A couple of points about the release.
First, this looks like yet another attempt to prevent the release of HadCRUT. They seem to be suggesting that we don’t need to replicate because a selection of stations will prove their point. I know we have all become a little more cynical since climategate but what exactly is wrong with HadCRUT that it warrants this kind of determination that nobody outside the inner sanctum should ever see it?
Second, 6000 stations sounds like that may be the whole set but are they really suggesting that 5000 of the 6000 stations are covered by confidentiality agreements?
The original FOI requests by Willis and others were for everything required to fully replicate HadCRUT, the most widely cited of all the indices , and we are no nearer to that now than we were pre climategate.
It is yet another smoke screen, more sophisticated to be sure but in the end HadCRUT will not be replicated by anyone outside the CRU. I have to ask what exactly has changed other than the method of evasion?
Me thinks roger is joshin ya!
bill (18:55:00)
“If it’s a moving average then there should only be 10years centred on the date averaged. This allows you to use up to 4years 11months from ends”
Agree (I’ve used moving averages for FTSE analysis for many years)
davidc (16:16:10) :
“Here’s the data direct from the MET”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/hadcet.html “
Graph I produced is also from UK Met’s office numerical data file. If data is to be believed, I found the prolonged seasonal deviation contrasts most interesting. Up to 1940 spring-summer-autumn are relatively in step with each other, then autumns move out of step.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/CET.gif
There is also number of prolonged periods of cold winters-hot summers .
Present warming period (ended around 2000) of 1.5C is on a similar scale to 1690-1730 period at about 2C, which certainly could not be attributed to CO2.
could someone explain why it will take 3 years to take a load of temperature data, “normalise” it, put it together and produce a graph?
Obviously I dont understand the ‘science’ that goes into these graphs but then I thought it was just data.
Roger says “Do you think they are manipulating the Greenland glaciers – of course not. ” Slowing since 2005, back to the speeds before the 80’s. The trees are more interesting to me. They are growing there again now as they were when the Vikings arrived. It seems that Greenland’s climate is returning to where it was before the LIA.
I love the phrase ‘fully peer-reviewed’. As if the peer-review process was that detailed.
Here’s a nice example of delving into the information: http://www.jgc.org/blog/