Just over a month after Climategate started, we have breaking news from Climate Audit
Steve McIntyre writes:
The UK Met Office has released a large tranche of station data, together with code.
Only last summer, the Met Office had turned down my FOI request for station data, saying that the provision of station data to me would threaten the course of UK international relations. Apparently, these excuses have somehow ceased to apply.
Last summer the Met Office stated:
The Met Office received the data information from Professor Jones at the University of East Anglia on the strict understanding by the data providers that this station data must not be publicly released. If any of this information were released, scientists could be reluctant to share information and participate in scientific projects with the public sector organisations based in the UK in future. It would also damage the trust that scientists have in those scientists who happen to be employed in the public sector and could show the Met Office ignored the confidentiality in which the data information was provided.
However, the effective conduct of international relations depends upon maintaining trust and confidence between states and international organisations. This relationship of trust allows for the free and frank exchange of information on the understanding that it will be treated in confidence. If the United Kingdom does not respect such confidences, its ability to protect and promote United Kingdom interests through international relations may be hampered…
The Met Office are not party to information which would allow us to determine which countries and stations data can or cannot be released as records were not kept, or given to the Met Office, therefore we cannot release data where we have no authority to do so…
Some of the information was provided to Professor Jones on the strict understanding by the data providers that this station data must not be publicly released and it cannot be determined which countries or stations data were given in confidence as records were not kept. The Met Office received the data from Professor Jones on the proviso that it would not be released to any other source and to release it without authority would seriously affect the relationship between the United Kingdom and other Countries and Institutions.
The Met Office announced the release of “station records were produced by the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, in collaboration with the Met Office Hadley Centre.”
The station data zipfile here is described as a “subset of the full HadCRUT3 record of global temperatures” consisting of:
a network of individual land stations that has been designated by the World Meteorological Organization for use in climate monitoring. The data show monthly average temperature values for over 1,500 land stations…
The stations that we have released are those in the CRUTEM3 database that are also either in the WMO Regional Basic Climatological Network (RBCN) and so freely available without restrictions on re-use; or those for which we have received permission from the national met. service which owns the underlying station data.
I haven’t parsed the data set yet to see what countries are not included in the subset and/or what stations are not included in the subset.
The release was previously reported by Bishop Hill and John Graham-Cumming, who’s already done a preliminary run of the source code made available at the new webpage.
We’ve reported on a previous incident where the Met Office had made untrue statements in order to thwart an FOI request. Is this change of heart an admission of error in at their FOI refusal last summer or has there been a relevant change in their legal situation (as distinct from bad publicity)?
As we get closer to the CRU kitchen [where they prepare the raw data ingredients] the smell of cooking is becoming overpowering….
Global Warming Goulash
First take your Darwin Zero raw station data and add in some step changes to spice up this otherwise bland dish:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/eschenbach_before-after1.jpg
Then add some additional spice by boiling down the number of station locations since 1850 with some step changes identified by John Graham-Cumming
http://www.jgc.org/blog/uploaded_images/a-709767.png
Please note that you should coordinate your step changes if you wish to get this mixture to rise properly in the oven.
The next step is to combine these ingredients in a computer so that they can be blended to perfection by removing any unwanted lumps and bumps.
The final steps in seasoning this dish are really for the connoisseur as detailed by Musings from the Chiefio at http://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
Moving your raw ingredients to lower altitudes (preferably a beach or an airport) will enable you to add some BBQ flavour and heat… if you find that the mix is not spicy enough then please move your raw ingredients to higher latitudes where they can be heated and roasted by the sun….
The finished dish should look something like this:
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part2_GlobalTempMeasure_files/image007.jpg
Global Warming Goulash is Mann made by good cooks everywhere.
This is not the raw data. This is a bone thrown to the dog to make him quiet.
I have compared the CRU data for some of the UK sites to the Met Office Station data and there are differences, I have asked the Met Office to check my assumptions. You can see the difference for Oxford at my website, generally it’s small but suddenly after 1979 there are large differences.
http://www.akk.me.uk/Climate_Change.htm
Michael R (22:23:26) :
Ok i tried standard quote marks, then i tried quote marks suggested by another reader and i still cant make quotes, can someone clarify what tags i need to add to make them?
Like this. (I think)
<blockquote>
</blockquote>
Turns blockquote off.
Jay (22:40:56) :
“I see what your saying, but I still believe in global warming.”
As an atheist I am used to that convincing line of argument.
I have already compared the temperatues from Met Office and ECA for my hometown, Lisbon, Portugal, and they show some interesting difference between them. Please check out the difference graph at http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2009/12/receita-de-tratamento-de-temperaturas.html
Ecotretas
Before you do anything with this data, do a Benson analysis on it.
I think Nike and Apple should re-think their actions of pulling out of the Chamber of Commerce because of their beliefs in AGW. I know I’ll be shunning those companies.
So, the value added station data is released but the explanations for the values which have been added have not.
Ho Hummm. Oh well, it gives us a bone to chew over the holiday break I guess.
I’ve used this new UK Met Office data source to create linear graphs for 24 BoM monitoring sites in Western Australia which compare it against historic records from the BoM, high quality data from the BoM and GISS data. Where available, I refer to it as HadCRUT3 data but I must admit I’m not too sure what to call it. UKMO09?
Albany
Bridgetown
Broome
Busselton
Cape Leeuwin
Cape Naturaliste
Carnarvon
Derby
Donnybrook
Esperance
Eucla
Eyre
Geraldton
Halls Creek
Kalgoorlie
Katanning
Kellerberrin
Marble Bar
Merredin
Perth
Rottnest Island
Southern Cross
Wandering
York
I wonder if the Met Office has been put under legal pressure here. From the outset, the original claim that Met Office/CRU couldn’t hand over data because of various legal restrictions sounded very thin. First, did Jones ever do more than assert that that was the case – did he prove in any way his claim that he couldn’t share data? Part of the claim was that the data had commercial value. Help out an ignoramus like me: in what way are, say, Singapore temperature readings 1930-1935, commercially valuable. Second, of the 193 countries in the world, strange that they all took the same line, that you can’t share this stuff with anyone because its ours and its jolly valuable. Strange that there weren’t one or two more generous spirited countries, at least. So maybe this is how we’ve got to here: someone has finally said, OK, show us the agreements where it says you can’t. And do you know, no-one could find any such agreements.
This is classic UK Govt spin, please remember I paid for this and its not worth the paper its written on, please use it for the only use left for recycled paper.
Some of the information was provided to Professor Jones on the strict understanding by the data providers that this station data must not be publicly released and it cannot be determined which countries or stations data were given in confidence as records were not kept.”
That has GOT to be the most weasled and weak explanation ever. There is a finite number of countries – NO recollection of those with whom agreements/”strict understandings” were made? No records kept? It’s THAT SLOPPY? Could be anyone? Can’t state or name anyone specific with any degree of confidence?
Worse yet — just how difficult would it have been — even over this past week — to make contact, or send out less than two hundred pieces of correspondence even, to get everyone on record as agreeing or objecting to the release of the data they provided…and then publicly name them as such?
The stench of coverup is still very thick in the air. The information they released? Virtually worthless. They can’t even distinguished between raw and adjusted data, and don’t even know what adjustments were made to what sets, or why. Good luck sorting that out. Meanwhile, good luck to the credibility of ANYONE who cites the CRU datasets in their work.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/12/17/new-study-hadley-center-and-cru-apparently-cherry-picked-russias-climate-data/
I knew this is what theyd do.
I sent them a request for the RAW, unadjusted, unmolested data weeks ago….”we’ll get back to you” they said, they never did.
What-a-surprise, more “adjusted” stuff.
Jay (22:40:56) :
You wrote about your father, “I see what your saying, but I still believe in global warming.”
How do you argue with that?
You say (with tongue in cheek) “Ah, elderly and respected parent, please step outside the igloo for a short time”. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2160/did-eskimos-put-their-elderly-on-ice-floes-to-die
Check please! I’ll get my bearskin.
I see the only data set used in Northern Ireland is Aldergrove and guess what it is an international airport… Cherry picking or what… We have an Observatory here in Armagh that has been diigently collecting data since the 1840’s……
It has an accurate forecast that shows no significant warming, even after its data has been homogenised by it own climate scientists.
Nothing to see here, move along
Michael R (22:00:19)
Meaning this is ‘probably’ data manipulated by the CRU ‘Harry’ software. In other words ‘Crap’.
It is not the raw data, which I believe they must have, but the ‘value added’ data.
And what is it with the software they have provided?
The is the equivalent of the Washington DC Friday “Data Dump”.
Anyone familiar with Washington knows that bad news, bad economic numbers, possibly troublesome policy decisions, etc, are always released publicly on Friday afternoon. Nobody reads the weekend papers or watches the news broadcasts. By the time Monday comes around, the administration can claim that it is “old news” and ‘nothing to see here’.
It’s the day before Christmas Eve, and most people are busy with the holidays and family until after the First of the year. Smart timing by the MET, but something tells me CRU isn’t going to get away with saying ‘old news, nothing to see here’ over this data…
My browser will be autorefreshing for all the latest from Anthony, Steve, Roger, William, Lucia, Jeff, Bishop, John, and all the other blogs over the holidays. Should be fun reading!
Global Warming Goulash – Notes for Wikipedia and Chefs
The original recipe for Global Warming Goulash is Top Secret and is believed to have originated in East Anglia although others claim it comes from Pennsylvania… perhaps the truth with never be really know…. However, it is now generally acknowledged that this dish is very smelly and is best swallowed with a large pinch of salt… However, dedicated individuals have managed to reverse engineer the main ingredients of this toxic concoction based upon random sampling, analysis and hard work. But please note that this recipe should never be released into the public domain without prior approval and peer review by the Magic Circle of AGW.
Buying your raw ingredients from the same manufacturing is most likely to produce the best results. However, some Chefs do experience problems with the ingredients and techniques used to produce the perfect Global Warming Goulash. If you should find that your mixture fails to rise, or is half-baked, then please do not release your dish for public consumption. Please place your failures in the Hide The Decline bin for safe disposal.
Now the domers can say, ” We have given them the [whisper](cut/recut,adjusted/re-adjusted,value added/value reduced,location added/location reduced)[/whisper] data. We are sure *smerk* that it will show everything we said it did….”
It is time to take a VERY close accounting of this crud they have just handed out and nt let up until either they release the true RAW DATA, of admit OUT LOUD and IN PUBLIC that they no longer have it. (Thus invalidating their ENTIRE premise…)
That should have read “Doomers”.
…and *smirk*.
*sigh*
Yet a year previously the they published such information openly. Then it was cross referenced against satellite data, which was more reliable and accurate, and put into doubt due to the enormous and growing divergence with GISS satellite data, (and then quickly withdrawn from the Met’s information pages).
it would be interesting to know why this precept isn’t applied equally across all fields of information they make available – such as willingness to tell us their projected temperatures, erroneous or otherwise, all around the world for the next 100 years, the weather for the next season, or indeed tomorrow’s weather forecast. During the week they wrote this international crisis that would come of telling us the temperatures, the daily forecast changes enormously, for example. At the beginning of that week it was going to be “hot and dry by Thursday” then at mid week it was changed to the weekend, and on Friday evening they apologised and said it would be later – hot and dry this week instead.
So its unsure that the Hadley centre and CRU do anything of serious value, especially in view of the erroneous (mistaken) forecasts for the last 8 consecutive seasons, which are quite entertaining to read in their archives. On their web pages they almost boast about not only uncertainty about their own models, but uncertainty about the science behind them. They make quite an issue of it in fact, and then, on that basis, proceed to make very certain predictions up to 100 years ahead.
on their info page they say they take different computer models that all produce different results, mash them all together (like custard with the steak tartare) to produce what is probably a thoroughly confused set of predictions about even the very near future – eg the next few days..
Above addressed to George Turner (22:17:52) :