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.
@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.