From 
Wed, 27 Jul 2011
All data sent to the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia by National Meteorological Services around the globe to complete its global land temperature dataset CRUTEM3 will be released today, apart from data from 19 stations in Poland.
The University has been working closely with the Met Office to arrange the release of the remaining data not already in the public domain.
CRU has made its gridded datasets available online for many years, but climate sceptics had asked to see the data as received from National Meteorological Services and research colleagues around the world, who had sent data to the Unit for its research purposes.
Some countries’ Meteorological Services, including Poland’s, had been unwilling to have their data publicly released – some, who charge for this information, for commercial reasons.
Data from Trinidad and Tobago are being released against that state’s wishes. This is because the University is complying with the Information Commissioner’s Office’s instruction to release part of the database which covered the latitude zones 30° N to 40° S.
Professor Trevor Davies, UEA Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, said: “We regret having to release data from Trinidad and Tobago against that state’s express wish but we want to place beyond all doubt our determination to be open with our data and to comply with the ICO’s instruction.
“To demonstrate that determination we have made the decision, in discussion with the Met Office, to release the data from latitudes outside the 30° N to 40° S zone, with the exception of some stations in Poland which has explicitly refused permission. This means that data from 5113 weather stations around the world are now released.
“We are very pleased to be in the position now to release data for all but 19 stations and are grateful to the Met Office for its support over the past 18 months and for its major effort in contacting National Meteorological Services to seek their permission for release. In the interest of openness, we have released data from those which have not responded to requests to release.
“We remain concerned, however, that the forced release of material from a source which has explicitly refused to give permission for release could have some damaging consequences for the UK in international research collaborations.”
Research findings from the analysis of the CRUTEM dataset, on the course of global-scale land temperature changes, tally with those of other independent research groups across the world, including NOAA and NASA.
The data are available from Met Office website:
And from CRU:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/station-data/
With explanations at:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
Steve McIntyre has a summry complete with historical details here.
Dragged kicking and screaming, but 99.628% of the way to full disclosure.
And here i’ve been getting lectured by believers who have been telling me that there is no locked data.
In order to comply, CRU took the huge risk to endure the wrath of Trinidad and Tobago… Courage at its utmost. sarc/off
The poor, sad believers… They truly believe the “Team” with a climate pig in a poke saying, “Trust me!”
It only took five years. Not bad, when ya think of it.
Anthony,
It looks like a great deal of the links being provided to the CRUTEM data are
actually to sites and pages chock full of value added gimmicks and explainations
that were not part of what was sent to the University of Georgia… and
therefore not part of the requested material in the original Information
Commission Office’s release order of June 23, 2011.
See:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2011/fer_0280033.ashx
Perhaps the good Professor Jones can enlighten us on exactly what was sent to
Georgia that was held so sacred by CRU… without all the after-the-fact bells,
whistles & spinning PR pinwheels.
Won’t be significant: They won’t be releasing the adjustment factors so what it went through is anybody’s guess. (It probably is something they’d have to guess about, too, considering documentation like Harry_Read_Me.)
Well, of course Trinidad and Tobago refused, they are looking forward to the islands drowning in sea rise for hand-outs from the UN. Maybe Lubos Motl can shed light on the neighboring Poland culture for the abject refusal of release of old data…
RockyRoad says:
July 27, 2011 at 9:00 pm
Won’t be significant: They won’t be releasing the adjustment factors so what it went through is anybody’s guess. (It probably is something they’d have to guess about, too, considering documentation like Harry_Read_Me.)
######
the data that harry worked on was an entirely different data set.
WRT adjustments. Why do you think it will be hard to figure out the adjustments?
State a hypothesis about the adjustments. do you think they are big? small? large in number? small.
If its an interesting hypothesis I will test it. If you are just speculating, well then not so interesting
What this CRU data is: A collection of monthly means/averages, taken either monthly or daily highs & lows, some straight degrees C, some converted degrees F to degrees C. It would not be the original observations, but a distilling. Comparable monthly means/averages are to be found in AMS Monthly Weather Reviews, but in degrees F. Between the two datasets is where one can check to see if the data is for real. I believe the early years data is untouched, the later years data has been corrected down for UHI, and that would be the CRU 91/94/99 datasets, which is another place to check for adjustments.
“CRU has made its gridded datasets available online for many years, but climate sceptics had asked to see the data as received from National Meteorological Services and research colleagues around the world, who had sent data to the Unit for its research purposes.”
Remarkable that UEA would use language like ‘climate sceptics’ in such a release knowing what a slur that is in their (tiny) minds. Very poor show.
They should not use any data that is not in the public domain. If it is not in the public domain then it cannot, ever, be part of science.
Interesting that the Polish Meteorological blow hards are still acting as the bastions of secrecy.
Bearing in mind the fact that Poland is more vulnerable to the EU’s grandstanding cAGW nonsense on CO2 than any other EU Country (I think they still get 90% of their electricity from coal?), there must be someone in Poland who’d be willing to have a word.
Not that it likely matters other than as a little figleaf for the serially dishonest Trevor Davies.
And UEA have had more than enough time to wash all this whiter than white and hide any naughty declines.
“We are very pleased to be in the position now to release data for all but 19 stations…..”
So what’s up with the 19 stations???
Trying to get the UEA to answer FOi requests is like trying to pull teeth. The contempt they have for the people who pay their wages is appalling.
So now we have 99% of the data, what conclusions can be drawn on the data itself, everyone else seems more interested in commenting on the CRU. Lets have some insight into the data please.
Let the comparison of the stations used in the CRU dataset with neighboring stations commence (should be interesting for Russia and Australia particularly).
Well done everyone who kept up the pressure.
tallbloke says: July 28, 2011 at 12:53 am
Let the comparison of the stations used in the CRU dataset with neighboring stations commence…
TB, I’ve put up a gadget to help here. It’s a pair of KML files that show the CRUTEM stations in Google Earth, with various additional information.
I’ve also put up a post with maps and analysis of station numbers,
Intrepid_wanders: Disappointingly, I don’t really know what’s behind Poland’s refusal to publish the old data. The Poles are our friends and overlap in many respects but differ in many others. And I am afraid that I wouldn’t know what the answer would be even if something similar had to be explained about Czechia.
My guess is that the old Polish data are probably not excessively high-quality ones haha. On the other hand, recent things may be behind it. Poland holds the current EU presidency and tries to fight against climate alarmism mostly for pragmatic reasons – Czechia has mostly idealistic and scientific reasons, of course. 😉 Poland produces 95% of electricity out of coal and recently vetoed some increase of CO2 emission cuts etc.
But those things have probably nothing to do with the actual reasons.
I’m just surprised at the use of “climate skeptics”. I can understand “global warming skeptics” but the new label seems as if it was a result of a global change to all of their documents without reading them even once. It makes a mockery of their mental faculties. Well, I guess it is good they aren’t referring to us as “Climate Deniers” but it is clearly that they have no clue what skeptics are skeptical about.
Is this data from before or after manipulation by the programs described in HARRY_READ_ME.txt?
Are these files what was actually requested? I thought the request was for the raw data from which the various summary datasets (CRUTEM3, HADCRU3, etc.) were generated, not monthly averages. Perhaps I misunderstood.
Even the definition of average is at issue. In close-enough-for-government-work terms, envisage a day with 23 hours of 10°C temps, and a spike in the afternoon when the clouds broke, up to 34°C. By the “splitting of min & max” system, the day would get recorded as 22°C. By weighted average (hoursxdegrees), it comes to 11°C.
NO calculation based on the 22°C figure would be meaningful or other than totally misleading.
Yet that’s how it’s done.
It would be interesting to get hold of the raw data from the measurement sites and compare it to the data sent to CRU to see what ‘processing’ it went through early on compared to what happened to it later at CRU.
Someone, I suspect, will eventually draw a chart to show all the processes that the data went through from source to final delivery, it would be interesting to see. Especially as it would allow us mere mortals to see whether there was any bias, in one direction or another, in the processing of the data.
Wasn’t it Poland that put the kybosh in the European Parliament that wanted an agreement to set the carbon emissions targets too high for their liking? Seems the EUP have shelved this and
supported by the Tory members of the European Parliament. Meant that the UK Green energy
legislation was shelved too? If they lied before though what’s stopping them lying again.
Further to Brian H’s post which brooks no disagreement. Last year I suggested that using (Tmax +Tmin)/2 was not a suitable approximation for Tmean. Steven Mosher put me right and, after testing the data to which he had pointed me, I had to agree with him.
That was, however, before I came across the following post by Anthony http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/17/giss-metar-dial-m-for-missing-minus-signs-its-worse-than-we-thought/.
Consider the hypothetical station report where Tmin is -10 and Tmax is +60, Tmean is approximated as 25. But, if as Anthony shows happens occasionally, the minus sign (M) has been dropped from recording the 60 reading and Tmin is really -60 while Tmax is, perhaps, 0 the approximated Tmean should actually be -30. Quite a difference. Even if this single small error was averaged over a whole month the records would overestimate the temperature by more than 1.5 degrees for that month alone.
Of course if stations used continuous temperature recording rather than daily max and mins this could not happen but although the facilities are available I understand that, for the sake of consistency with the past, error prone recording and averaging are still the norm.
“Brian H says: July 28, 2011 at 4:03 am
Even the definition of average is at issue.”
It’s not at issue. CRUTEM, like all such induces, is based on the monthly average of daily min/max means. No-one claims it’s any different.
Whether some other measure might be preferred is fanciful – what we actually have is a historic record of daily min and max temps. Even climate scientists can’t change that.
@- Brian H says:
July 28, 2011 at 4:03 am
“Even the definition of average is at issue. In close-enough-for-government-work terms, envisage a day with 23 hours of 10°C temps, and a spike in the afternoon when the clouds broke, up to 34°C. By the “splitting of min & max” system, the day would get recorded as 22°C. By weighted average (hoursxdegrees), it comes to 11°C.
NO calculation based on the 22°C figure would be meaningful or other than totally misleading.
Yet that’s how it’s done.”
And as long as the method is consistent it provides a useful metric for the detection of trends and variance.
But your scenario is a little outlandish, and not as clear-cut as you imply. It would require most unusual weather conditions to create just a 1 hour spike 24degC higher than the rest of the day just from changing cloud cover.
There is also the matter that IF conditions where such that the temperature could rise to 34degC in this rapid manner the min-max average probably does represent a better measure of local thermal energy levels than the time-weighted version. And is much easier (until recently the only method possible) than a time-weighted figure.
Both have their advantages and problems, but both can provide a useful metric if consistant over time.
Newsflash! Trinidad Hot Over Release of Temperature Data.
The release yesterday by the UEA/CRU reveals the ups and downs in Trinidad’s on-going stormy relationship with Tobago which violates their privacy rights. In a related story, independent investigators had discovered that the data was compiled from on-line responses of listeners to a leading talk radio show in Trinidad.
sarc/off
Poland is in the EU and the Polish data are thus subject to the Access to Environmental Information directive — regardless of whether the directive was transposed in Polish law, regardless of the legal status of data collectors, and regardless from where in the EU data access is requested
What’s up with Poland anyway? And why withhold such a tiny number of stations?
What a truly bizarre bunch they are at CRU.
The ICO decision is here…
http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2011/fer_0280033.ashx
Yes but it’s all tainted now.
Who will believe the figures when they had over a year to manipulate them ?
Are these figures even relevant anymore, because it seems like the debate has moved on ?
Comments from Trevor Davies ,Gavin Schmidt and Bob Ward wrt the UEA data release-
“We released [the dataset] to dispel the myths that the data have been inappropriately manipulated, and that we are being secretive,” says Trevor Davies, the university’s pro-vice-chancellor for research. “Some sceptics argue we must have something to hide, and we’ve released the data to pull the rug out from those who say there isn’t evidence that the global temperature is increasing.”
“One can hope this might put an end to the interminable discussion of the CRU temperatures, but the experience of GISTEMP – another database that’s been available for years – is that the criticisms will continue because there are some people who are never going to be satisfied,” says Gavin Schmidt of Columbia University in New York.
“Sadly, I think this will just lead to a new round of attacks on CRU and the Met Office,” says Bob Ward, communications director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics. “Sceptics will pore through the data looking for ways to criticise the processing methodology in an attempt to persuade the public that there’s doubt the world has warmed significantly.”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20739-ok-climate-sceptics-heres-the-raw-data-you-wanted.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
@Garacka
You say : “Trinidad’s on-going stormy relationship with Tobago”
But that isn’t Cricket old bean, what-oh, chip-chip.
In the Carribean, Cricket is FAR MORE important than any
of the climate-wittering than goes on in here and elsewhere.
http://www.ttcricketboard.com/
No mention of HADCRUT or any other kind of CRUT at that
website which has the following “Mission Statement” …..
“To develop and sustain cricket as the most successfully organized sport in Trinidad and Tobago and the National Team as the best in the West Indies, in collaboration with its players, zones, clubs, administrators, affiliates and all stakeholders.”
—–
Just to pursue a point, and to show how seriously Cricket is taken, over the antics of hubristic climate wittering, Europeans. Here is an abstract from a book, entitled, “Brian Lara in Poetic Form”……..
“This essay considers the place of Brian Lara in Caribbean poetry through two literary framing devices. It first situates the iconic image of Lara within the literary frames provided by T.S. Eliot’s ‘Tradition and the Individual Talent’ and Kamau Brathwaite’s notion of ‘mwe’, before unpacking Lara poems composed by writers and performers as well known as Jean Breeze, Howard Fergus and Paul Keens-Douglas. The discussion suggests that by reading these pieces as a collection Lara is shown to represent the Caribbean’s ongoing negotiation between the one and the many, as well as the potentially hazardous over-investment in the individual hero. Consequently, the discussion is less concerned with the actions and personality of Lara than it is with his heroic image in poetry and the critical messages West Indies cricket and the Caribbean more generally may take from such literary representations.”
That’s SERIOUS Cricket analysis !!!!!
Yet I bet that most readers will be unable to understand why the folks of Trindad & Tobago would want to dissect the anatomy of such a folk hero, and maybe don’t even know who Brian Lara really is. Cricket isn’t about life and death, in the Carribean. It’s far more important than that !
Funny, the British Advertising Standards Authority can require companies to pull advertisements when the advertisers fail to provide un-retouched images for comparison if someone believes the ad to be inaccurate, but CRU does not have to pull their temperature products when they fail to provide original information to people attempting to verify their results. Guess there is no oversight group for climate scientists.
http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/loreal-ads-of-julia-roberts-and-christy-turlington-banned-for-airbrushing-2516498/
@Nick Stokes,
That’s a great gadget and work you did.
It’s too rare around here that good things are said of others and honor given where it’s due, so I just wanted to thank you, and give you encouragement. I enjoy your demeanor when it’s calm and focused like this, and you’ve added a lot to the discussion here.
“Perhaps the good Professor Jones can enlighten us on…”
I wouldn’t trust Prof Jones to enlighten a candle.
What a shameful and humiliating exercise this has been for the UEA in general and the CRU in particular!
izen;
deliberately misleading answer, I think. Not surprised. My example was constructed to maximize the effect, but the size of the effect is almost secondary to the inevitability of it. The core problem is the sparseness of the data used, and the amount discarded. That makes it, as Anthony’s observations about the dramatic effect of sign reversal (far from unknown) shows. Intelligently applied filters (‘reasonableness tests’) catch such boo-boos, but are surprisingly rarely used. Sometimes a boiling hot Lake Michigan sneaks into the records!
I believe “climate skeptic” to be a step up from “climate denier,” but no less meaningful. Are “climate skeptics” sitting on the fence as to whether or not the climate actually exists, while “climate deniers” categorically state the climate does not exist?
Oops! “no less meaningful” should read as “equally meaningless.”
Luboš Motl says: (July 28, 2011 at 2:11 am) says, “My guess is that the old Polish data are probably not excessively high-quality ones haha.”
I’m not a scientist, but a historian. A few years ago, I looked at the the pre-war GISS weather station data from Poland. I did this only out of curiosity, and chose Poland only because I speak Polish and have done some archival work in that country. All I can say is that what I found confirmed my preconceptions about the quality of the temperate record. Many of the records did not differentiate between high and low temperatures (most records which I saw only had one temperature recorded). None of them indicated what time of day the reading was taken. Many dates were simply missing.
It should surprise no one that the Polish pre-war records were in such bad shape. Most of the pre-war governmental records in Poland were destroyed during the war. I have not seen the weather station data taken during the Polish People’s Republic. However, I would not be surprised if it were in just as bad of condition. It is entirely possible that many of those records were merely faked by the meteorologists, as they spent their days drinking vodka or standing in bread lines rather than doing their jobs. That’s just the way it was back in those days. I would not be surprised if the Poles are simply embarrassed about the state of their records. A proud people, the Poles.
@erik in Tehachapi
That’s where around 1% of California’s electricity is made (sometimes, if the wind is a-blowing), by the use of over 5000 windmills, isn’t it ? I took a look on the Google Satellite view. What a boondoggle that lot is. Maybe there is enough to power the towns of Mojave & Tehachapi on a windy day, but what an eyesore it is, and is there any Eagles left in the area at all ?
And what are all these “roads to nowhere” in the area ?
The whole area is cris-crossed with scores of “roads” and few actual buildings.
It is like a large town that has burned down and blown away in a desert sandstorm.
http://url2it.com/gedc
Maybe those windmills didn’t sustain as large a development as was first envisaged ?
Erik;
Proud but embarrassed Poles they may be, but if their vodka-soaked data got into the computations, it needs to be disclosed.
Alphabet Soup says:
July 27, 2011 at 11:24 pm
Trying to get the UEA to answer FOi requests is like trying to pull teeth…
… from a Pharaoh, in a locked sarcophagus, in a walled in chamber, deep in the core of a solid pyramid, buried in the sand, at an unknown location, in a massive desert somewhere within 500 miles of one of the banks of the longest river on Earth.
But first you have to find prove the teeth exist.
Erik in Tehachapi, it’s a small planet indeed- I live in Tehachapi myself, work in Mojave. Have you ever read the “Crosstime Engineer” novels by Leo Frankowski? They’re a lot of fun, very politically incorrect.
On topic, I’m much too busy to dig into the data files, but I’m sure there are some people in the skeptic community who have the time and skills to audit the data. I’m looking forward to their summaries.
Brian H (July 28, 2011 at 11:01 am), “Proud but embarrassed Poles they may be, but if their vodka-soaked data got into the computations, it needs to be disclosed.”
Agreed. I don’t post often on science blogs. Or, any blogs for that matter. But, the issue of complete scientific transparency is one of longstanding interest. Note: http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/07/a-small-document/#comment-220677
I was Erik in Cairo back then. That was before I was evacuated from Egypt.
Doug, Tehachapi is much nicer than Cairo. Mojave, not so much. (-;
Axel, it’s not really that bad. A new power line is being installed to carry the wind power over to Castaic lake, where there is a 1.4 GW pumped-hydro storage system. The wind power can be stored in Pyramid Lake and released when needed, so it’s one of the few wind-hydro combinations that actually can be reliable. I’d be happier if the surplus wind power lowered my utility rates in Tehachapi, though… supply and demand ought to count for something, but then, I’m in the people’s republic of Californica.
Duke C. says:
July 28, 2011 at 7:29 am
CRU did not release data. What they released is a summary of monthly averages taken from original data. It does not tell anything about the process of how they came up with thier summary in of itself.
Did they borrow from previous works, contemporary works, original observation data, etc., and what specific data came from what source? Without such knowledge, thier data sets cannot be duplicated, and no measure of uncertainty from thier in-house processing can be assigned.
One may take their procuct at face value and attempt to replicate their findings.
If, as Phil Jones has avered to, original data from which the station monthly averages has been lost, then the value of the CRU product is less than 100%.
How much orginal station data can be accounted for at this time? Key.
steven mosher says:
July 27, 2011 at 9:55 pm
State a hypothesis about the adjustments. do you think they are big? small? large in number? small.
If its an interesting hypothesis I will test it. If you are just speculating, well then not so interesting
****
Hypothesis,
A graph of the adjustments over time will conform to the shape desired by someone attempting to create a hockey stick shape out of the combined dataset. Much like what you see with the GISS adjustments.
Doug;
Pumped hydro can handle maybe a day’s worth of missing output due to too soft/too strong/too cold/too whatever winds. Which is not a rare occurrence. Contrary to assurances and mythos, large areas can be simultaneously affected. And all such storage kluges are very lossy, hence expensive. Lipstick and mascara on a pig.
RobertM.
“Hypothesis,
A graph of the adjustments over time will conform to the shape desired by someone attempting to create a hockey stick shape out of the combined dataset. Much like what you see with the GISS adjustments.”
Your hypothesis is not falsifiable since it:
1. refers to a non observable: someone’ desire
2. has no magnitude.
For people who demand a return to normal science, I would expect better.
I’ll give you a do over.
“CRU did not release data. What they released is a summary of monthly averages taken from original data. It does not tell anything about the process of how they came up with thier summary in of itself.
Did they borrow from previous works, contemporary works, original observation data, etc., and what specific data came from what source? ”
Do any of you read the data before you vomit nonsense.
1. the sources are identified as a part of the station identifier
2. Some source data IS MONTHLY ONLY
3. if you read the request Letters you would understand what CRU requested from people.
“A graph of the adjustments over time will conform to the shape desired by someone attempting to create a hockey stick shape out of the combined dataset. Much like what you see with the GISS adjustments.”
Except we don’t see that with the GISS adjustments. If you are just going to make stuff up why not just flat out lie and claim you know the data are faked by Phil Jones because you saw him edit the numbers with a biro pen?
Ged says: July 28, 2011 at 8:40 am
Thanks, Ged
jaymam says:
July 28, 2011 at 2:50 am
Is this data from before or after manipulation by the programs described in HARRY_READ_ME.txt?
############
entirely different dataset. not an issue.
Look at what Australia will do to those committing “fraud” to counter a “fraud”
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/abbott-slams-draconian-carbon-cops/story-e6frfku0-1226104042303
Not quite on topic here but didn’t want to see this buried elsewhere.
I look forward to re-analysis with the new data, but I doubt that anyone will undertake that job. Has anyone reanalysed GISS, which has been maligned as CRU has, using the data and code that has been publicly available for years?
The negative response from the peanut gallery was predictable. It wouldn’t matter if CRU somehow managed to retrieve all the original station data – still they would be accused of doctoring it. Some people will never be satisfied, but rather than write CRU off and move on, they will wallow in the snark fest because it feels so good.
A far smaller number, approaching zero, may actually attempt hemispheric and global reconstructions with the newly released data. That would be useful, at least. I hope to see a post on that here.
steven mosher says:
July 28, 2011 at 3:41 pm
Yes, I have read through the station data, and the station data headers.
I have used Phil Jones CRU data before, and I have found additional sources both in monthly and daily, and compared the sets. So what if some sources are only Monthly? It does not mean they are the only game in town. Somebody at some point took original observations and/or tabulated it.
My point is this: The closer you can get to the original observation, the more information you have.
If that is nonsense to you, so be it. I stand by my conclusion.
I think another explanation might help explain temperature records. In statistics, when you are measuring a system, you can measure similar things in about 40 different ways and come to the same conclusion. High and low temperature is how the records have been kept for years, and although maybe not ideal, it does work out to give us a relative trend.
You have to prove that this method introduces systematic error otherwise its just as good as a good old average temperature anyway. When you are discussing statistics, when you have so many different unaccurate measurements, the sheer volume of entries will make the holes disapear so to speak in many ways. Sure, you probably can not trust completely what the weather was like in say 1913 Poland at all, but you can use that data with other incomplete data (assuming you don’t just throw it away anyway) and the error might be larger, but overall you can also say that its more accurate.
Where is the pitfall in this? Well in the GCM design, we take heat content as a measurement. Since high and low temperatures could very well differ from day to day on this measurement (in comparison to heat content) our GCM data is rather lackluster for this reason. Something to think about anyway… Its not systematic error but more or less accuracy error perhaps. Year to year measurements will not match up with two different scales and you are left with the conclusion that you are indeed comparing apples to oranges.
But that is a note of caution more then anything else. This is just one of the many reasons that the idea of BR in GCM’s (heat content) is just a terrible idea in the first place. Nothing really new there, but it is something to note. So there is nothing wrong statistically with the way we measure temperatures, but the problem comes in when we model based on different metrics such as “heat content.”
But enough of that…..Lets discuss systematic errors (such as UHI) which itself turns out to be on the magnitude of 0.1C or so. This is a rather large error, and it is important to check and double check it, but remember that since 1850 we have warmed. That is rather factual. None of the errors I can see in the data can back that up.
But adjustments can and will change slopes.
I am curious to the reasonings behind adjustments. Anything besides UHI or other systematic adjustments (to correct systematic error) are the places to look for issues. With temperature, I am especially not convinced that adjusting has been done correctly or for good reasons. The UHI adjustments are necessary. Other adjustments for the F to C conversion (for instance maybe?) are also necessary (think systematic bias). But what other systematic bias’s need to be fixed? That is the question and if every adjustment can not be explained due to a systematic bias, then the adjustment is worthless.
This is a point of contention. Its not up to us as sceptics to prove that an adjustment is wrong. Its up to the scientists to prove that the adjustment was necessary. Don’t let them switch the game on us. Adjustments should be throw away unless they are reasoned and well written. If we can not figure out the why, there is absolutely no reason to use the adjusted data. Just use the raw data and go from there.
“Just use the raw data and go from there.”
You realize this has already been done by various groups, notably by staunch skeptics at The Air Vent, and the results are a very close match to the surface records?
(The Air Vent reconstruction produced a higher centennial temperature trend than CRU)
Underlying data are held by the National Meteorological Services (NMSs) and other data providers. Such data have in certain cases been released for research purposes under specific licences that govern their usage and distribution.
It is important to distinguish between the data released by the NMSs and the truly raw data, e.g. the temperature readings noted by the observer. The data may have been adjusted to take account of non-climatic influences, for example changes in observing methods, and in some cases this adjustment may not have been recorded, so it may not be possible to recreate the original data as recorded by the observer.
THAT is what you REALLY want to see.
Because there are versions and revisions of the Monthly data sets:
Jones 99c
703710 5707 -13535 20 SITKA————— USA———- 1832 19897037100 70371000
1832 11 -13 17 31 89-9999-9999-9999-9999 61 56 25
1833 40 19 49 66 83 122 144 156 128 98 76 20
1834 1 19 40 48 74 118 119 115 108 84 68 40
1835 36 32 37 55 77 103 117-9999 106 55 46 -2
1836 -5 31 47 62 100 121 117 131 108 87 50 -1
1837 49 47 52 63 101 105 118 130 102 89 32 23
1838 14 25 19 51 89 109 128 128 101 79 53 51
1839 1 63 34 69 98 118 143 156 136 85 68 52
1840 73 4 79 59 87 102 127 144 116 69 21 21
1841 21 34 47 56 74 125 139 131 101 74 55 21
1842 26 21 -5 40 62 115 123 120 103 62 41 37
1843 -11 -30 18 44 76 109 121 124 98 77 32 24
1844 -20 32 12 51 77 131 133 130 101 60 21 15
1845 7 -16 25 52 87 106 130 142 97 73 28 49
1846-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999
1847-9999-9999-9999-9999 84 106 121 133 98 63 21 11
1848 -30 -16 5 33 79 112 141 122 103 65 45 -9
1849 -33 -37 -14-9999-9999 92 112 116 97 66 36 -2
1850 -57 15 -22 37 74 89 125 131 102 68 38 23
1851 -3 31 49 79 114 131 152 169 137 113 66 -10
1852 52 26 18 70 99 124 156 158 138 100 32 -36
1853 16 39 42 71 107 113 134 142 129 82 -70 22
1854 -14 19 26 73 84 119 142 154 133 81 73 14
CRU/UEA today
703710 571 1353 20 SITKA MAGNETIC OBS. ALASKA 18322007 101832
1832 11 -13 17 31 89 -999 -999 -999 -999 61 56 25
1833 40 19 49 66 83 122 144 156 128 98 76 20
1834 1 19 40 48 74 118 119 115 108 84 68 40
1835 36 32 37 55 77 103 117 -999 106 55 46 -2
1836 -5 31 47 62 100 121 117 131 108 87 50 -1
1837 49 47 52 63 101 105 118 130 102 89 32 23
1838 14 25 19 51 89 109 128 128 101 79 53 51
1839 1 63 34 69 98 118 143 156 136 85 68 52
1840 73 4 79 59 87 102 127 144 116 69 21 21
1841 21 34 47 56 74 125 139 131 101 74 55 21
1842 26 21 -5 40 62 115 123 120 103 62 41 37
1843 -11 -30 18 44 76 109 121 124 98 77 32 24
1844 -20 32 12 51 77 131 133 130 101 60 21 15
1845 7 -16 25 52 87 106 130 142 97 73 28 49
1846 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999
1847 -999 -999 -999 -999 84 106 121 133 98 63 21 11
1848 -30 -16 5 33 79 112 141 122 103 65 45 -9
1849 -33 -37 -14 -999 -999 92 112 116 97 66 36 -2
1850 -57 15 -22 37 74 89 125 131 102 68 38 23
1851 -14 12 24 56 90 106 126 141 108 90 52 -18
1852 41 7 -7 46 75 99 130 130 109 76 17 -45
1853 5 20 17 47 83 88 108 114 100 58 -70 14
1854 -25 0 1 49 60 94 116 126 104 57 59 6
Which set is closer to reality, and how would you know without access to what the sets were derived from?
I am considering adding the CRU temperature chart;
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc.gif
to the WUWT Global Temperature Page;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-temperature/
based on this comment;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-temperature/#comment-702046
and the release of their data.
I have one issue, in that the chart confusingly states that it is “Air Temperature” versus Surface Temperature, when it is in fact a “global land and marine surface temperature record”;
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
but I am otherwise unaware of any convincing evidence that the chart is erroneous. Can anyone present a compelling argument as to why Phil Jones CRU temperature chart should not be included on the WUWT Global Temperature Page?
rbateman, those concerns drill down past CRU to the weather stations/nat met offices involved, worldwide. Do you have a constructive suggestion for obtaining the data?
I do. In the manner of the surfacestations project, how about an effort, led by skeptics, (so it will be unimpeachable), to gather up data from source worldwide? Not only can the skeptical community then get their data free from the CRU taint and do their own temperature series, a new, raw data set will be available for any group to use (assuming no proprietary issues). Even better, Anthony and his colleagues (Fall et al?) can examine the question of bias in the global trend, as suggested in their paper earlier this year. It would be interesting to see for example, whether it was a fluke that biases cancel each other out for the US mean temperature record, and whether the diurnal range biases are manifest in other country’s records.
I’ve poked my nose into a couple of locations in Western Australia – the capital Perth Regional Office (BoM 9034) where I live and the Cape Leeuwin station (BoM 9518) which is a long-term lighthouse reading with no surrounding urban development at all over 100 years.
Perth’s temperature history is very messy with four different locations (inc Perth Airport) since 1897, each about 4km distant. See http://www.waclimate.net/perth-temperature-history.html
I’ve done a couple of charts comparing CRU, BoM raw and BoM HQ data (trendline polynomial order 4):
Perth Regional Office – http://www.waclimate.net/imgs/perth-regional-cru-bom-hq.gif
Cape Leeuwin – http://www.waclimate.net/imgs/cape-leeuwin-cru-bom-hq.gif
For Perth Regional Office, the CRU mean temp from 1910 to 1919 was 18.96C. The raw BoM data has it at 17.85C while the BoM’s adjusted HQ data is 17.92C. I’ve included Perth Airport in the chart because that’s effectively the official BoM record for the capital, starting 1910 even though the airport didn’t open till 1945.
If anything, the CRU data is adjusted to level out the temperature records at these two sites, to such an extent there’s been hardly any warming at Cape Leeuwin over 100 years and similar at Perth Regional Office taking into account the relocation of station 9034 from Mt Eliza (elevation 61 metres) to inner city Wellington St (elevation 19 metres).
For Perth Regional Office, I can only assume the CRU data has a UHI adjustment in the early 20th century up to 1.1C, which is probably fairly accurate (even though the adjusted BoM HQ data doesn’t seem to agree).
If the temperature data were compared to seed plots without quality control, the very idea of compiling such data for analysis would be nixed. The non-quality controlled seed plots would not be homogeneous and could not be used to determine seed characteristics under controlled conditions. No more than the temperature data from various countries and their poorly controlled stations. In my opinion, the most that could be done here would be to google map the stations for quality control issues which would shed light on the voracity of statistical conclusions made about global warming based on the just released compiled CRU data.
I wonder who we could get, someone experienced in surface station quality control reviews, to do this?
barry says:
July 28, 2011 at 10:17 pm
I USED to get original observation digitals from http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/coop/coop.html
but this popped up in March, and has been there ever since:
Notice: NCDC is working toward restoring access to the full period of record for all IPS documents as quickly as possible. Full access is not expected until mid-summer (July). We apologize for any inconvenience.
Failing that, newspaper archives are a good place to dig. We need an army of volunteers to do this.
I have done so for my area, and you’d be surprised at some of the things that went on 150 years ago.
Pamela Gray says:
July 29, 2011 at 8:54 am
You need seasoned/veteran meteorologists. Lots of them.
rbateman – i don’t think getting your data from NCDC (or GIur run of the mill skeptic.SS or CRU) is going to satisfy skeptics, who appear to trust none of the established sources. Basically, if data comes through any of these portals, it’s going to be seen as Team-tainted, right?
(If the skeptical community trust any of the above, please let me know, so I can defer to that source in future)
The only way I can see for the skeptical community to get at the truth is to gather the data from source, bypassing the suspect middle-men (NASA, NOAA, UEA/CRU), and creating an independent data base.
rbateman, do you think it is at all possible to create a workable data set? Or do you think the defects make it impossible?
Sorry about the bafflegab in the first para – big hands, sensitive touchpad. The brackets should say “(or GISS or CRU)”.
planet’s atmosphere is not same as human body – to be same temperature everywhere. Flactuation in Europe /USA by 8degrees is = to flactuation in Oceania by 0,8degrees = should be 10 times more monitoring places over Pacific than Europe /USA. Is it?! The truth always wins on the end boys. You from East Anglia; log on http://www.stefanmitich.com.au to see the questions one day will be asked in court of justice, under oath!
Shouldn’t this have been handled in advance?
Proprietary scientific data? What the heck is that?
They shouldn’t have included data they couldn’t publish. Period, end of story.
the fact that anybody can withold information of that kind is really frustrating and scary.