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.
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.