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 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.