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.