Meto Update: Scientist Acquires Raw Station Data

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Link

Do I think this is good? No, because the manner in which it has happened threatens to make science look even worse (investigation). I think Met Office should have released the data themselves. Now the data's out, I think they should leave it and gratefully accept what assistance McIntyre gives them as per his generous offer to voluntarily audit their data records.

A Mole

by Steve McIntyre on July 25th, 2009

OK, folks, guess what. I'm now in possession of a CRU version giving data for every station in their station list .

In their refusal letter, the Met Office described adverse consequences of disclosing CRU station data, an event that apparently would let loose the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

The Met Office stated:

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. …

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.

They continued:

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.

Competitors/ Collaborators could be damaged by the release of information which was given to us in confidence and this will detrimentally affect the ability of the Met Office (UK) to co-operate with meteorological organisations and governments of other countries. This could also provoke a negative reaction from scientist globally if their information which they have requested remains private is disclosed.

And that's not all. There's more:

to release it without authority would seriously affect the relationship between the United Kingdom and other Countries and Institutions.

CRU was a less dramatic but still very clear about the consequences:

we feel that there is a strong public interest in upholding contract terms governing the use of received information. To not do so would be to potentially risk the loss of access to such data in future

.

Just to prove that I have actual CRU station data, here is the 60th series (Lund Sweden), covering the period 1753-1773: sensitive information indeed.

1753 -1.8 -1.3 3.7 7.6 11.5 14.6 16.7 15.9 13.4 9.9 3.2 -3.0

1754 -1.0 -1.4 -1.2 5.6 12.9 15.2 15.1 15.5 11.9 10.1 4.7 1.9

1755 -3.8 -5.3 0.8 7.9 12.0 17.8 18.2 15.4 12.1 8.4 3.7 2.0

1756 1.9 2.3 2.5 4.2 9.9 17.6 19.4 15.6 14.1 9.2 1.8 -0.1

1757 -2.8 0.7 1.4 8.2 10.7 18.2 21.4 17.6 13.6 5.2 6.0 1.3

1758 -3.9 -2.0 0.7 3.3 13.9 16.7 16.0 16.8 11.8 6.7 4.5 1.0

1759 2.4 2.3 3.4 6.2 10.2 17.4 20.1 18.1 13.1 9.1 2.1 -2.0

1760 -4.0 -1.0 0.7 6.1 11.8 19.2 18.2 17.1 15.3 8.5 4.0 2.5

1761 0.6 1.2 5.0 6.8 12.9 18.0 17.3 18.3 15.2 6.3 5.1 -0.6

1762 1.1 -0.7 -1.8 8.1 11.5 17.0 17.4 14.2 12.4 4.8 4.1 0.5

1763 -3.9 0.5 0.5 4.6 11.2 14.9 17.8 16.9 11.5 7.7 2.8 3.0

1764 -0.1 3.0 1.4 5.6 12.5 13.6 20.5 16.3 11.8 7.6 2.4 0.1

1765 -0.3 -2.3 2.9 6.9 10.2 15.3 15.9 16.9 11.9 9.0 4.5 -0.2

1766 -1.8 -2.7 2.1 8.1 11.9 17.3 18.8 17.2 13.8 8.7 5.8 -0.9

1767 -6.1 -0.6 2.1 2.7 9.8 13.9 16.4 17.3 15.0 8.9 6.4 0.4

1768 -5.5 -3.1 -2.4 5.1 10.7 16.3 17.9 17.1 12.5 8.2 4.9 2.1

1769 0.6 -0.5 2.3 5.7 11.3 15.6 17.6 15.9 13.6 5.2 2.6 3.2

1770 -2.3 0.0 -2.9 4.5 11.5 15.1 18.1 18.1 15.4 10.5 2.5 1.5

1771 -3.8 -3.8 -3.9 2.2 12.4 18.0 17.2 15.1 12.5 10.1 2.8 2.5

1772 -1.6 -2.1 -1.1 4.7 10.0 16.2 17.8 17.1 13.6 11.0 7.2 2.9

1773 1.0 -0.9 1.6 7.3 14.1 15.9 18.1 18.0 14.5 11.2 5.0 2.6

It's hard to imagine that my being in possession of CRU station data would "damage the trust that scientists have in those scientists who happen to be employed in the public sector", interfere with the "effective conduct of international relations", "hamper the ability to protect and promote United Kingdom interests through international relations" and "seriously affect the relationship between the United Kingdom and other Countries and Institutions."

But that's what the Met Office says.

Given such dramatic adverse consequences, I wonder what they'll do. Will they investigate? I wonder what the form of investigation will be. Will they do it Jack Nicholson-style?

Edited July 26, 2009 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Solar Cycles]

Link

Do I think this is good? No, because the manner in which it has happened threatens to make science look even worse (investigation). I think Met Office should have released the data themselves. Now the data's out, I think they should leave it and gratefully accept what assistance McIntyre gives them as per his generous offer to voluntarily audit their data records.

And that's not all. There's more:

CRU was a less dramatic but still very clear about the consequences:

.

Just to prove that I have actual CRU station data, here is the 60th series (Lund Sweden), covering the period 1753-1773: sensitive information indeed.

It's hard to imagine that my being in possession of CRU station data would "damage the trust that scientists have in those scientists who happen to be employed in the public sector", interfere with the "effective conduct of international relations", "hamper the ability to protect and promote United Kingdom interests through international relations" and "seriously affect the relationship between the United Kingdom and other Countries and Institutions."

But that's what the Met Office says.

Given such dramatic adverse consequences, I wonder what they'll do. Will they investigate? I wonder what the form of investigation will be. Will they do it Jack Nicholson-style?

[Methuselah]

Well then. Now that we have the data available to us, what are we going to do with them? :lol:

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Station location coverage - are the stations equally distributed.

A plot of the raw data record before it has been put through an algorithm.

A comparison of records from rural and urban stations.

Checking for close stations with divergent records.

[Methuselah]

My goodness, it's easier to request state secrets, than data from the MetO. I'll be putting this forward to my MP when I get to see him, Like I've stated this as put science back years, what is wrong with sharing this information with fellow scientist? I'll be requesting that their is a full investigation, into the way the MetO conduct their buisness. At last Mr McIntyre can assess the aquired data, now we wait to find out just why the MetO were so reluctant to pass this on!

It's amazing isn't it, Solar. And, I agree, it woud be better if organizations (in general) were more willing to share their knowledge the public at large. So, aye, take it to your MP, and see what he can do. Because (legal issues aside, [and they are a cause for concern]) a better informed, and hopefully better educated public ought to be a good thing...

Station location coverage - are the stations equally distributed.

A plot of the raw data record before it has been put through an algorithm.

A comparison of records from rural and urban stations.

Checking for close stations with divergent records.

That seems like a good start. Are there any details of the algorithms themselves?

[Filski]

I have to laugh at those that say this will put science years back. The aim of science is to be unbiased and as we all know McKintyre is far from it. His aim is to show that the data is flawed and as with any data in the hands of a statistician he will do it. It proves nothing, just that he can manipulate data. He's not a scientist, he's a biased mathematician.

As for the availability of the data, I support making it available - through the right channels. McKintyre's reputation is such now that anything he finds honestly will be appreciated and updated. Anything he forces out will be ignored by those with real scientific values. Those who subscribe to failed moon landings, 911 conspiracies and twisted findings through bias can beleive what they want.

It's time to roll out the pirate chart again.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

That seems like a good start. Are there any details of the algorithms themselves?

They still need to get the so-called "value-added" version.

Filski

Anything he forces out will be ignored by those with real scientific values. Those who subscribe to failed moon landings, 911 conspiracies and twisted findings through bias can beleive what they want.

Explain to me the scientific values you are referring to.

[Solar Cycles]

I have to laugh at those that say this will put science years back. The aim of science is to be unbiased and as we all know McKintyre is far from it. His aim is to show that the data is flawed and as with any data in the hands of a statistician he will do it. It proves nothing, just that he can manipulate data. He's not a scientist, he's a biased mathematician.

As for the availability of the data, I support making it available - through the right channels. McKintyre's reputation is such now that anything he finds honestly will be appreciated and updated. Anything he forces out will be ignored by those with real scientific values. Those who subscribe to failed moon landings, 911 conspiracies and twisted findings through bias can beleive what they want.

It's time to roll out the pirate chart again.

He is as much of a scientist as Hansen or Mann, or any other climate scientist! And if the data is flawed, what do you expect him to do with it? I can see why warmists are hot under the collar over this, but if the data is shown to be correct then we are all happy. Let's just wait and see, have we!

[Filski]

MKintyre forms none of his own theories to test. He sets out to disprove anything that shows warming. While this can be construed as scientific method (testing of data to replicate results) I have my doubts that he can separate himself from his own bias sufficiently to extract results of any value. He is not a scientist.

[Solar Cycles]

MKintyre forms none of his own theories to test. He sets out to disprove anything that shows warming. While this can be construed as scientific method (testing of data to replicate results) I have my doubts that he can separate himself from his own bias sufficiently to extract results of any value. He is not a scientist.

You accuse McIntyre of being bias, yet Hansen or Mann have never been biased in what they do????

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

MKintyre forms none of his own theories to test.

He sets out to disprove anything that shows warming.

These two sentences contradict each other. The second sentence suggests his hypothesis is that "global warming" is a statistical effect of the way data is (mis-)handled by climatologists.

While this can be construed as scientific method (testing of data to replicate results)

McIntyre is a statistical analyst. He's not trying to replicate results produced by the climate models. He's applying statistical science to those models.

This requires the observation of data that goes into those models and construction of hypotheses to explain why the models have the effect they do.

Like any other scientist, his work needs to be replicated by others. Unlike some, he doesn't hide is data or methods.

I have my doubts that he can separate himself from his own bias sufficiently to extract results of any value. He is not a scientist.

If a scientists follows the scientific method to investigate his theories, which McIntyre does, that is not bias, that is research (albeit not research into global warming/CO2).

Edited July 26, 2009 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Filski]

These two sentences contradict each other. The second sentence suggests his hypothesis is that "global warming" is a statistical effect of the way data is (mis-)handled by climatologists.

No, that is not a hypothesis, it's just being difficult.

McIntyre is a statistical analyst. He's not trying to replicate results produced by the climate models. He's applying statistical science to those models.

This requires the observation of data that goes into those models and construction of hypotheses to explain why the models have the effect they do.

Like any other scientist, his work needs to be replicated by others. Unlike some, he doesn't hide is data or methods.

If he's not trying to replicate anything then what does it matter if method or value added data is not provided? All he is doing to trying to pick holes in others work, and damage reputations. No wonder nobody wants to deal with him. Unfortunately scientific method is not perfect, sometimes errors creep in. The better scientists revise their findings over time - as Hansen has done. McKintyre has single handedly damaged the ability of scientists to share information because now scientists have an inherent mistrust of what others plan to do with their data. Hardly condicive to progressing the body of knowledge we have. Sometimes I think that is the goal of AGW scpetics.

If a scientists follows the scientific method to investigate his theories, which McIntyre does, that is not bias, that is research (albeit not research into global warming/CO2).

I would question if he indeed does. He is unable to refrain from the use of emotive language, something I'm challenged him on before.

[MR EXTREMES]

MKintyre forms none of his own theories to test. He sets out to disprove anything that shows warming. While this can be construed as scientific method (testing of data to replicate results) I have my doubts that he can separate himself from his own bias sufficiently to extract results of any value. He is not a scientist.

here we go again,

theres scientist on each side of the fence science would be one way traffic if only global warming ran the show but ofcoarse it dont work like that theres two sides to every story.

as for him as a scientist i think your just trying to find a excuse for something you dont wanna hear,

and im sorry it makes no difference this person is a scientist and in the land of science all data and sides should be listened to.

its also strikes me your quick out of the block to dissaprove this data even though you most likely dont even understand it so i let the experts look at it then i will say what i think.

No, that is not a hypothesis, it's just being difficult.

If he's not trying to replicate anything then what does it matter if method or value added data is not provided? All he is doing to trying to pick holes in others work, and damage reputations. No wonder nobody wants to deal with him. Unfortunately scientific method is not perfect, sometimes errors creep in. The better scientists revise their findings over time - as Hansen has done. McKintyre has single handedly damaged the ability of scientists to share information because now scientists have an inherent mistrust of what others plan to do with their data. Hardly condicive to progressing the body of knowledge we have. Sometimes I think that is the goal of AGW scpetics.

I would question if he indeed does. He is unable to refrain from the use of emotive language, something I'm challenged him on before.

like hasen has done lol and his science is even recently been spot on,

oh please give me a break theres another one who moves the goal posts at every possible moment when things are not going good.

and from what im seeing hasen looking like having to do it again.

and nasa solar activity enough said. :lol:

Edited July 26, 2009 by badboy657

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

No, that is not a hypothesis, it's just being difficult.

Explain to me what "just being difficult" means.

I put it to you, "global warming is a statistical effect of the algorithms climatologists use to process data" is a scientific hypothesis that can explain temperature graphs, such as the infamous hockey stick.

If he's not trying to replicate anything then what does it matter if method or value added data is not provided? All he is doing to trying to pick holes in others work, and damage reputations.

Boo hoo - get out of the kitchen. Is that not what global warming theorists are doing to Svensmark?

No wonder nobody wants to deal with him. Unfortunately scientific method is not perfect, sometimes errors creep in. The better scientists revise their findings over time - as Hansen has done.

I'm not biting - that's another subject and thread entirely.

McKintyre has single handedly damaged the ability of scientists to share information because now scientists have an inherent mistrust of what others plan to do with their data.

These scientists believe in the imminent danger global warming presents to humanity and will share information to save the world. We all know that.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Reading the latest exchange with the MetO still strongly implies to me that the problem stems mainly from the organisations that are providing them with the data, in the sense that they don't want their data made freely available. Maybe they have genuine revenue-stream reasons and commercial uses for their data, maybe they are just being overzealous with their copyrights (as many people and organisations are these days). But I maintain that this issue isn't primarily the fault of the Met Office or Phil Jones.

Copyright is always a tricky issue for too little of it erodes revenue streams and too much of it inhibits the spread of information and exposure to products and makes people make do with less.

Whatever, let's see what happens now that he has a hold of the data. Unfortunately I would much rather a relatively non-biased source got a hold of it.

[Gowon]

Reading the latest exchange with the MetO still strongly implies to me that the problem stems mainly from the organisations that are providing them with the data, in the sense that they don't want their data made freely available. Maybe they have genuine revenue-stream reasons and commercial uses for their data, maybe they are just being overzealous with their copyrights (as many people and organisations are these days). But I maintain that this issue isn't primarily the fault of the Met Office or Phil Jones.

Copyright is always a tricky issue for too little of it erodes revenue streams and too much of it inhibits the spread of information and exposure to products and makes people make do with less.

Whatever, let's see what happens now that he has a hold of the data. Unfortunately I would much rather a relatively non-biased source got a hold of it.

Hi Tws

This is the problem we're facing, where are we going to find someone who isn't bias then? Who would you suggest we have to analyze the data? I certainly dont (100%) trust the IPPC and its cronies.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

MKintyre forms none of his own theories to test. He sets out to disprove anything that shows warming. While this can be construed as scientific method (testing of data to replicate results) I have my doubts that he can separate himself from his own bias sufficiently to extract results of any value. He is not a scientist.

It's about time that someone DID try to force data out into the open. Hooray for McIntyre. I have read an American forum - a much larger number of meteorogists and observers encourage disputing the so-called mainstream AGW science to a much greater extent than happens over here. The science needs a challenge - anyone who resists that challenge or moves to close it down arouses suspicion of something to hide.

I repeat, climate change is supposed to be the biggest threat to mankind, caused by mankind, and especially according to AGW scientists. They should welcome the opportunity to openly provide scientific data to further the cause of research. All these excuses of protecting of global commercial interests does not wash in terms of what is supposed to be at stake. My very initial reaction to this thread was to try and evoke some sympathy in terms of the right of confidentiality and the jeopardising of the interests of such participants at stake - but I then I had a very quick reality check. On the basis that AGW science is apparently so sure that man is the culprit for climate changes and variations what is the big deal?

People like yourself posting defensively about someone trying to obtain closely guarded data are yet another symptom that perhaps all is not as rosy in the garden with the science and resorting to attacking the person who has asked for the information is a sure sign of that. And putting Hansen up somehow as a contrasting breath of fresh air - a figure of scientific respect, unbias and example to follow - is stretching credibility somewhat a tad. With his record!

[Thundery wintry showers]

Hi Tws

This is the problem we're facing, where are we going to find someone who isn't bias then? Who would you suggest we have to analyze the data? I certainly dont (100%) trust the IPPC and its cronies.

Indeed, therein lies the problem. I'd personally trust the IPCC more than most, but they are by no means immune to bias. It's worth noting that the MetO and Phil Jones have clearly analysed the data in conjunction with their global temperature record.

Although some of us try to be as impartial as possible, unbiased sources are hard to find- most people, especially the less knowledgeable, take up one extreme position or the other and fit evidence around it.

[Chris Knight]

The data is apparently available online from CRU at the Tiempo Climate Cyberlibrary

ftp://www.tiempocyberclimate.org/projects/advance10k/cruwlda2.zip

[Iceberg]

This data should be released to the public.

However, if the skeptics like WUWT wish to be treated as scientists with a public interest in the data then they really need to stop the childish, silly attacking of the various global temperature data sets and that somehow their's produced in a back room is right and all the others wrong.

Their recent look at the US stations is a prime example of how silly it's become.

The constant digs of deliberate manipulation, political agendas etc at NOAA, the METO/HADLEY and every other major climate centre in the world should stop.

Behaviour like adults and you will get treated as adults.

Edited July 26, 2009 by Iceberg

[Methuselah]

This data should be released to the public.

However, if the skeptics like WUWT wish to be treated as scientists with a public interest in the data then they really need to stop the childish, silly attacking of the various global temperature data sets and that somehow their's produced in a back room is right and all the others wrong.

Their recent look at the US stations is a prime example of how silly it's become.

The constant digs of deliberate manipulation, political agendas etc at NOAA, the METO/HADLEY and every other major climate centre in the world should stop.

Behaviour like adults and you will get treated as adults.

Yes. If they'd get down to some proper peer-reviewable work themselves, instead of casting evidence-free aspersions at the efforts of others, they would indeed gain credibility. Having done that, though, they'd be risking their David vs Goliath popularity within the Blogosphere?

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

The 'backroom' boys are certainly putting the cat amongst the pigeons though. Good on them, there is too much acceptance by too many.

Ice, why should it stop when there has been clear and proven 'false' information given out?

BFTP

Edited July 26, 2009 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

The data is apparently available online from CRU at the Tiempo Climate Cyberlibrary

ftp://www.tiempocyberclimate.org/projects/advance10k/cruwlda2.zip

Did they release this today following the leak?

[Chris Knight]

Did they release this today following the leak?

I doubt it, the file name cruwlda2 was mentioned by Doug Hoyt, he said it was zipped at about 3.6Mb here, so I went fishing with my friend Google, found the gegereka site with the link then did a little FTPing and a reverse IP lookup to find out it is a CRU site, with some research data available by anonymous FTP. I'd bet it has been around for ages, but interesting how long it will remain available now. Of course I have a copy, should it disappear...

[The PIT]

Their recent look at the US stations is a prime example of how silly it's become.

If you referring to the survey where stations are sited it's far from stupid. Lets build an air conditioning unit next to the official recording station. Oh look it's got warmer I wonder why.

There was another one where the weather station in the Antarctic was actually buried yet the data still being used as valid data.