Met Office to re-examine 150 years of temperature data in the wake of the Climategate scandal

dailymail.co.uk ^ | 24th February 2010 | Fiona Macrae

[neverdem]

The Met Office is to re-examine more than 150 years of temperature data after public trust in climate science was shattered by the Climategate email scandal.

It says that the reanalysis, which was approved at a conference in Turkey earlier this week, is 'timely' and it does not expect it to reach a hugely different conclusion about the impact of global warming.

But the reassessment by an international group of experts will be seen by many as a tacit admission that its previous reports have been tainted by its association with the University of East Anglia's disgraced Climatic Research Unit.

Since more than 1,000 emails and documents were leaked from the unit in November the public's belief in global warming has plummeted from 41 per cent to 26 per cent.

The Met Office and the University of East Anglia work together to produce one of the three databases relied upon by the UN's climate change panel, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, when assessing the danger posed by global warming.

The raw figures, which date back to 1850, will now be scrutinised by an independent panel of experts from around the world, in a three-year project.

A document proposing the review states that the reassessment will 'ensure that the datasets are completely robust and that all the methods are transparent'.

In a nod to calls for scientists to be more open about the uncertainty surrounding their predictions, it adds: 'Participants will be required to create a full audit trail and publish their methodology in peer-reviewed literature.

'Strong preference will be given to systems...that reflect the uncertainties in the observations and methods.'

A Met Office spokesman denied the reanalysis had been triggered by doubts over UEA's contribution.

He said: 'Scientists are always looking and trying to get the best results...

[McKayopectate]

“it does not expect it to reach a hugely different conclusion about the impact of global warming.”

What?! You mean, we’re suppose to trust these yokels even though they’ll come to the same conclusion about global warming as the fraudsters?!

[Hazwaste]

it does not expect it to reach a hugely different conclusion

So much for drawing a conclusion from the data.

[FrankR]

Sorry fraudsters...you can’t re-light this candle...it’s out.

[the_Watchman]

Here's the reason why: "the public's belief in global warming has plummeted from 41 per cent to 26 per cent."

And here's the foregone conclusion: " . . . does not expect it to reach a hugely different conclusion about the impact of global warming. "

Of course, what is NOT stated in this article is that the CRU claims all the early data has been lost and the only remaining data is the massaged data. Thus, they are starting with tainted data and can only expect to arrive at a tainted conclusion. The fact that they neglect to mention this problem guarantees that the conclusion cited above is the one which will be reached.

Q.E.D.

[Parley Baer]

Exactly. The climate data has been so screwed up because of politics we don’t know who is on first. This group apparently thinks the same way and are starting all over again. Of course our dimoKKKRAT Congress and Obama is still going full speed as if nothing has happened.

[colonialhk]

So the Raw data will be scrubbed again by people we can trust again to prove global warming again....hmmm...next thing they will be asking for us to pay for it again and....trust them again..to use raw data they scrubbed while we trust and pay them...ACADEMICS and Bureaucrats for full employment again

[jpl]

The Met Office doesn't get it. John Christy at UAH directly stated that the records, and particularly the more recent ones, are contaminated by urbanization and all kinds of artifacts, and are therefore worthless.

They can analyze the data 100 more times if they want to; it's still worthless. For all intents and purposes, a truly accurate and reliable long term temperature data set doesn't even exist.

[teeman8r]

150 years of data... hmmmm

just a fart in the earth’s carbon footprint...

t

[HiTech RedNeck]

They’ve done to irreplaceable weather data what Obama’s mentors did to his life history. That ought to be a crime of some kind.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Urbanization effects could, in principle, be tracked.

[LibLieSlayer]

“Let us construct bigger and better lies to steal your freedom with”.

LLS

[GladesGuru]

“But the reassessment by an international group of experts will be seen by many as a tacit admission that its previous reports have been tainted by its association with the University of East Anglia’s disgraced Climatic Research Unit.”

Anything, or any person, associated with the UN is disgraced.

[jpl]

Going forward, I agree they could, but I don’t see how they can accurately correct contaminated data from the past.

[HiTech RedNeck]

If they have maps showing how urbanized observation points were at various points in time, they can try to figure out the influence of urbanization.

[RJL]

150 years of data... hmmmm

Yes, why 150 years? Was it warm, medium or cool in 1860?

One of the warmers' favorite starting points for their warming trend graphs is the 1970s since that was the end of 30 years of cooling, so their warming trend graphs have that hockey stick look about them.

On the other hand, if they start their warming trend graphs in 1934 the graph ends in 2009 at almost exactly where it started in 1934.

It's much harder to sell $Trillions in new taxes and government control over every aspect of the people's lives when the graph doesn't show a lick of warming.

[Stentor]

It says that the reanalysis, which was approved at a conference in Turkey earlier this week, is 'timely' and it does not expect it to reach a hugely different conclusion about the impact of global warming.

[neverdem]

Yes, why 150 years?

Although they have some recorded temperatures going back to 1790s from some places, not many existed before the 1860s. You have to rely on proxy data from tree rings, ice cores, sediment, etc., before that.

Chapter 1 Historical Overview of Climate Change ScienceInspired by the paper Suggestions on a Uniform System of Meteorological Observations (Buys-Ballot, 1872), the International Meteorological Organization (IMO) was formed in 1873. Its successor, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), still works to promote and exchange standardised meteorological observations. Yet even with uniform observations, there are still four major obstacles to turning instrumental observations into accurate global time series: (1) access to the data in usable form; (2) quality control to remove or edit erroneous data points; (3) homogeneity assessments and adjustments where necessary to ensure the fi delity of the data; and (4) area-averaging in the presence of substantial gaps.

[maine-iac7]

How convenient to take such a tiny piece of time - 150 yrs - conveniently omitting the “Warming period” of about 500 years (800-1300) and the Little Ice Age (about 1300-1850)

We wouldn't want to let the whole picture get in our way. We wouldn't want to examine how those Vikings caused globel warming running around in their SUV’s - or was it gas guzzling Viking Ships?

the History Channel had an excellent movie a few years ago: The Little Ice Age - which, curiously, seems to have disappeared off their web site??? The DVD has been discontinued by History but some can still be found on Amazon. (I just ordered the book version along with the book “The Long Summer” which chronicles the period just preceding the Little Ice Age. VHS tapes are gone, DVD’s will change to a newer version - but books will be books for decades and decades.)

There are some snippets of The Little Ice age on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpZqAPmW6d0

and remember 30 years ago the politicians and scientist were panicking us with the fast encroaching and catastrophic ice age - starvation in 10 years...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko&NR=1&feature=fvwp

below: the sun TODAY - one tiny sunspot - sunspot activity has coincided with warming/cooling trends for millenia. We have had an unusual - and disheartening - lack of sunspot for the past few years...

http://spaceweather.com/images2010/24feb10/midi512_blank.gif?PHPSESSID=o0dfsj22gsfjsp32ct9rdblcq5

[Interesting Times]

The Met Office doesn't get it. John Christy at UAH directly stated that the records, and particularly the more recent ones, are contaminated by urbanization and all kinds of artifacts, and are therefore worthless.

They know that. The Met office just wants to announce that the unfortunate (but minor) problems with their data have been resolved. Everything is fine now. Please stop pestering us to support our claims with verifiable evidence.