Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

Meto Update: Scientist Acquires Raw Station Data


Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Dorset
  • Location: Dorset

The problem SC is that WATTS has shown itself to far far from independent, so all that will happen is that a tiny piece of the Hadley work will be picked on (probably due to either a lack of understanding or a lack of clarity around how the data is calculated) WATTS will determine that this is a big flaw and the HAD data set shouldn't be used. HAD won't respond to such allegations and then the Skeptic network of sites will carry the story and like chinese whispers it will get exaggerated with each telling.

It will probably finish off with an article in the Times by a certain well know reporter a couple of months down the line who will call the Hadley centre a bunch of useless scientists and frauds and WARTS WATTS will publish the newspaper article saying how the British think about there own Climate scientists, but at arms length so he can therefore claim not to be spreading such slanders.

Rather a mystic meg moment, but this happens so often in the climate world it's unbelievable and so, no I don't think that Watts or another skeptic of that calibre auditing the Hadley work is a good idea or furthers science in anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon

I'm not a huge fan of any blog site to be honest, at least not when it comes to verifying science. That statement however has a large caveat attached.

Organisations and institutions have, can and will get away with shoddy work and bad decisions unless they are accountable. Now, I'm not saying Hadley has or that the temperature record is dodgier than a DVD purchased from the back of a three wheeler, but it should be independently verified.

We agree. And we agree SM isn't the man for the job?

Where blogs and the media come into their own is by raising public awareness of situations like this. A blog may not be the best auditor but if it prompts an independent audit, then all power to them I say. There hasn't been a plethora of independent auditors coming forward, nor being appointed to do this work; if the end result is that SM audits the record and this is in turn scrutinised and audited by an independent body, what possible harm can it do? The record will have been dissected in intricate detail to the point that doubt can no longer be cast as to the validity of it. A win/win situation IMO.

But this is the problem and here we disagree. SM is not independent - he IS self appointed. He's not raising public awareness via an audit done in an independent way. So, because of that, he is bound (one way or another) to be misleading (not deliberately) the public.

Now, that gets us onto who would be suitable to 'audit' the record? I say scientists via peer review, I say it's been done, but who/what say you if not SM or AW?

Exactly, if they are so cock sure of their findings, then watts the problem ( sorry )! Why is it that all things relating to AGW, should be made exempt from independant audits? If they are shown to be incorrect, why do warmists get twitchy feet? After all, most of you believe all things IPCC! So surely a few mistakes here and there, won't change things, or will it!!! wink.gif

I'm not against independent audits. I am against self appointed and thus inevitably biased 'auditers' like SM and AW.

How on earth can you support self appointed 'auditers'? Like I say if 'auditers' can be self appointed why not let 'inferno' of the parody blog I linked to self appoint himself to do the job?

Edited by Devonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs

The problem SC is that WATTS has shown itself to far far from independent, so all that will happen is that a tiny piece of the Hadley work will be picked on (probably due to either a lack of understanding or a lack of clarity around how the data is calculated) WATTS will determine that this is a big flaw and the HAD data set shouldn't be used. HAD won't respond to such allegations and then the Skeptic network of sites will carry the story and like chinese whispers it will get exaggerated with each telling.

It will probably finish off with an article in the Times by a certain well know reporter a couple of months down the line who will call the Hadley centre a bunch of useless scientists and frauds and WARTS WATTS will publish the newspaper article saying how the British think about there own Climate scientists, but at arms length so he can therefore claim not to be spreading such slanders.

Rather a mystic meg moment, but this happens so often in the climate world it's unbelievable and so, no I don't think that Watts or another skeptic of that calibre auditing the Hadley work is a good idea or furthers science in anyway.

So who would you recommend, if no one else is forthcoming?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

The problem SC is that WATTS has shown itself to far far from independent, so all that will happen is that a tiny piece of the Hadley work will be picked on (probably due to either a lack of understanding or a lack of clarity around how the data is calculated) WATTS will determine that this is a big flaw and the HAD data set shouldn't be used. HAD won't respond to such allegations and then the Skeptic network of sites will carry the story and like chinese whispers it will get exaggerated with each telling.

It will probably finish off with an article in the Times by a certain well know reporter a couple of months down the line who will call the Hadley centre a bunch of useless scientists and frauds and WARTS WATTS will publish the newspaper article saying how the British think about there own Climate scientists, but at arms length so he can therefore claim not to be spreading such slanders.

Rather a mystic meg moment, but this happens so often in the climate world it's unbelievable and so, no I don't think that Watts or another skeptic of that calibre auditing the Hadley work is a good idea or furthers science in anyway.

Don't you think that your septic peg moment, if it happens, could lead to a thorough, independent audit? Wouldn't that be a good thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire

I think the whole point of SM wanting to check the records is to evaluate them and see if there is any evidence of bias; not an unreasonable action. As far as I'm aware, they haven't been independently evaluated before so any evidence of bias either way hasn't been validated.

The IPCC margin of error in their 95% confidence isn't a direct result of evaluating the temperature records, it incorporates the incomplete knowledge of feedbacks, I therefore don't think it can be taken as a measure of confidence of station data.

Not according to the IPCC's own Summary for Policymakers:

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/005.htm

The global average surface temperature (the average of near surface air temperature over land, and sea surface temperature) has increased since 1861. Over the 20th century the increase has been 0.6 ± 0.2°C5, 6 (Figure 1a). This value is about 0.15°C larger than that estimated by the SAR for the period up to 1994, owing to the relatively high temperatures of the additional years (1995 to 2000) and improved methods of processing the data. These numbers take into account various adjustments, including urban heat island effects. The record shows a great deal of variability; for example, most of the warming occurred during the 20th century, during two periods, 1910 to 1945 and 1976 to 2000.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

But this is the problem and here we disagree. SM is not independent - he IS self appointed. He's not raising public awareness via an audit done in an independent way. So, because of that, he is bound (one way or another) to be misleading (not deliberately) the public.

Now, that gets us onto who would be suitable to 'audit' the record? I say scientists via peer review, I say it's been done, but who/what say you if not SM or AW?

I'm not against independent audits. I am against self appointed and thus inevitably biased 'auditers' like SM and AW.

He is raising public awareness. Whether he's the man for the job is another matter. All I can say with any degree of knowledge is that he audited the American records, found a problem and the records were checked against his audit and the records were amended. The fault was with the record, not SM's audit, that's got to at least suggest he's fairly thorough and competent; records by official bodies aren't routinely changed at the behest of a blogger out to mislead the public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire

Further to my last post, that source is slightly out of date as the IPCC has updated its stance since then.

The Fourth Assessment Report gives 0.74C subject to a +/- of 0.18C:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850). The 100-year linear trend (1906-2005) of 0.74 [0.56 to 0.92]°C1 is larger than the corresponding trend of 0.6 [0.4 to 0.8]°C (1901-2000) given in the Third Assessment Report (TAR) (Figure SPM.1). The temperature increase is widespread over the globe and is greater at higher northern latitudes. Land regions have warmed fasterthan the oceans (Figures SPM.2, SPM.4). {1.1, 1.2}

However the Fourth Assessment Report makes no mention of the reasons for the uncertainty, so it is important to note its stated reasons in the Third Assessment Report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

Not according to the IPCC's own Summary for Policymakers:

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/005.htm

I stand corrected TWS, thank you.

That just leaves the adjustment for UHI effect and how accurate this is, anyone have any idea how this is calculated, by whom and how it's applied? Individual stations or broad, across the board adjustments?

Who's to say it has not been audited ?.

So where is the audit? Wouldn't SM be auditing the audit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

FWIW, my opinion, is that competition should allow for self-audit.

For sure, there are commercial gains to be made by keeping a monopoly on such data, and, no doubt, the MetO have tried to keep the monopoly on the basis of ensuring integrity, and homegeneity with it's partners. This data is almost certainly resold onto businesses such as supermarkets who want to see what the weather is like at a given location. The MetO takes the revenue from such businesses on behalf of the UK taxpayer.

Now that this data is in the public domain, that revenue stream is likely lost. Only a good look at the MetO accounts would should what that loss to the UK taxpayer is likely to be. I suspect that cost against price is likely to be about even, as the cost of looking after all those weather stations, particularly the man-power, is likely to be expensive.

So where are we now? Well, we are at the stage where the raw material is now freely available, so the only option to the MetO is to provide products with 'value-added' This, of course, can now be done by others, which creates a market; that the MetO are most likely suited to interpret the data and provide the 'value-added' is now a judgement of the consumer, not the supplier. If the MetO say that a location is likely cold (Redhill, say) so Tesco's stock up on fleeces, and gloves, particularly at Autumn/Winter for that location, and it turns out that the MetO are wrong, then, perhaps, Tesco's will approach NetWeather, say, and purchase such 'value added' products from them.

As long as someone else does it, then the quality of the raw material will always be looked at, and will always be analysed to see if it is accurate, so that the quality of the 'value-added'ness doesn't suffer.

We don't need WUWT, or indeed anyone else, using very difficult to understand statistical methods, clouding such an important issue. That he is a talented statistician is neither here nor there, the chances are, under the 80/20 rule, that at least 80% of the MetO raw data is good, but when the 20%, or less, is found to be less desirable, it will take an age to discover that really any problems that appear are not that significant after all.

A long time ago I tried to get access to the source-code of their weather models, and I didn't get anywhere; I took that as a sign of, perhaps, conspiracy, but, in all reality, it is just a commercial secret. In the same way that I am solving, today, FIFO stock analysis using formal methods (set theory, queueing theory) and not using standard iterative techniques, is a 'secret' of my company. It's what I am paid for it, and if I put it into the public domain I'd be sacked for it.

The world of science *should* be pure and have high standards - but it exists in the real world, with real concerns. We are not living on the Enterprise where people only work to better themselves. We need money to buy food. We need money to live.

It's a shame, but that's the world we live in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire

Copyright is a tricky one. Organisations and individuals have to keep some things "secret" and restrict some uses of data in order to protect revenue streams, but on the other hand if they go overboard with that, the products don't get enough exposure, people think they're being ripped off and so revenue can decrease, resulting in everyone losing out. My view is that copyright restrictions, like many other things, are increasingly becoming too draconian on the whole, though the MetO's stance has if anything bucked that trend over the last decade with more of its stuff being provided for free.

But with regards this climate data, the MetO and UEA are keeping this data private at least partly because the data providers have come up with a binding agreement saying they can have the data as long as they keep it private.

So I think in many ways they have their hands tied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Dorset
  • Location: Dorset

The think is though Jethro I don't know whether it has been audited or not.

I wish i did know.

As to an independent audit, the easiest thing is to publish the procedure (without the data) in a publication like nature.

I do know that the HAD data takes the longest to come out which would indicate it has the most reviewing of the data to ensure it's accurate.

Some like UAH come out within 2 or 3 days.

I really don't see what WATTS/Warwick is adding, or hoping to achieve by it's stance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

Here's Tim Ball's opinion on all this plus a critique of the UHI effect

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13570

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EPAJSD_UHI.pdf

Before anyone leaps up and down saying it's inflammatory, biased and scathing, please read the details and ignore the headline. Any "prove the dangerous deception, baseless accusation against innocent scientists" stuff which usually follows, will fall on deaf ears.

Tim Ball isn't a journo, he's an eminently qualified scientist and retired professor of Geography and Climatology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon

Here's Tim Ball's opinion on all this plus a critique of the UHI effect

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13570

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EPAJSD_UHI.pdf

Before anyone leaps up and down saying it's inflammatory, biased and scathing, please read the details and ignore the headline. Any "prove the dangerous deception, baseless accusation against innocent scientists" stuff which usually follows, will fall on deaf ears.

Tim Ball isn't a journo, he's an eminently qualified scientist and retired professor of Geography and Climatology.

Mostly the same old same old - hockey stick, M&M, David Deeming's unverified quote, Warwick Hughe's attack on Dr Jones and the current 'we want the data and we want it now' foot stamping - but I did notice the temperature graph.

Tim Ball may be eminent but he's not past using a graph that isn't up to date (and by some margin). Obviously it's just coincidence the graph ends with a plunge in temperature :yahoo: ... However, I can produce a graph of global temperature that is bang up to date (I have one on the other PC at home) - why can't he?

Edited by Devonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

Mostly the same old same old - hockey stick, M&M, David Deeming's unverified quote, Warwick Hughe's attack on Dr Jones and the current 'we want the data and we want it now' foot stamping - but I did notice the temperature graph.

Tim Ball may be eminent but he's not past using a graph that isn't up to date (and by some margin). Obviously it's just coincidence the graph ends with a plunge in temperature :yahoo: ... However, I can produce a graph of global temperature that is bang up to date (I have one on the other PC at home) - why can't he?

What possible difference would a bang up to date graph make to station data, the stations used and the adjustment for UHI?

Dismiss the requests for data as nothing more than "foot stomping" all you like, it won't make the request any less valid. The revered peer review system we hear so much about is also based upon scientists releasing data for verification, why should Dr. Jones be above this system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

I rather think the article cuts to the chase rather well.

If one wants to be above reprise then one must provide the means to duplicate the results. In line with my last post, here, if it is for commercial reasons, then so be it, we all understand; but if it is to be accepted into the body politik of science, then surely the rules set out (by many here, for good reason) must apply equally and without prejudice across the board.

If they don't apply, then there needs to be a good reason. Personally, I think it's commercial interests.

Edited by VillagePlank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

I do so like the tennis-court station...It has the look of a stage-set to it??

What do they do there - burn newspapers and report an 'unadjusted' temperature of 451of?

Or, report a massive drop in global temps when the paper runs out? :yahoo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

I do so like the tennis-court station...It has the look of a stage-set to it??

What do they do there - burn newspapers and report an 'unadjusted' temperature of 451of?

Or, report a massive drop in global temps when the paper runs out? :yahoo:

But what are your serious thoughts on the release of the data and the need for it to be audited and independently verified?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

But what are your serious thoughts on the release of the data and the need for it to be audited and independently verified?

I'm glad you noted my pathetic attempt at humour, jethro...Saving commercial/copyright reasons, I have absolutely no problem with independent audits...I am a sceptic, afterall! :yahoo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

Well, I never knew that Pete ;):D

:yahoo:

I've been taking my vitamin D!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

I'm glad you noted my pathetic attempt at humour, jethro...Saving commercial/copyright reasons, I have absolutely no problem with independent audits...I am a sceptic, afterall! :D

Not sure it merits a + mark, but it is early, there's time for improvement :yahoo:

Glad to hear you're open minded about all this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Dorset
  • Location: Dorset

Where to start....This is unfortunate Pseudo science, some of which you need to take a step back to realise what he's saying.

Firstly, Why is there such a large correlation (and indeed decadal rate of increase between satelite and HAD, NCDC) if HAD and NCDC are so fatally flawed, but as he himself puts it "Satellite not only provides more complete coverage including the coeasn, but also integrates localised urban warming..NOAA does not use this prize resource in tracking change".

No they don't there are flaws using just satelite and just observations, combined they are much stronger and more accurate. Funnily enough combined they still show the same level of warming. !!!!!

He keeps banging on about USHCN, but then extrapolates a decrease in rural stations as if it effects NOAA's global temperature figures (It Doesn't) !.

The big reduction of rural stations (which he claims led a warm bias and removed many of colder stations) occured between 1988 and 1992, was there a big increase in US 48 temps during this period ?, sorry must of missed that, maybe because it didn't exist.

We all know there has been an increase in urbanisation over the last 50 years, but has there been an increase of urbanisation around the recording stations in the last 10(since he's claiming that recent warming is caused by UHI effect). I think the answer is no.

However in the last 20 years the atmosphere is much cleaner in American cities due to a reduction in pollution, better insultation as well leads to a reduction in the amount of residual heat a building now emits.

I am sorry this is very poor cherry picking which really doesnt make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

snip ...

Yes, I agree with some of that. However, the problem isn't the details, although one might like to focus upon them, the problem is on the availability, or non-availability of the raw data as a means of pursuing a scientific endeavour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

Where to start....This is unfortunate Pseudo science, some of which you need to take a step back to realise what he's saying.

Firstly, Why is there such a large correlation (and indeed decadal rate of increase between satelite and HAD, NCDC) if HAD and NCDC are so fatally flawed, but as he himself puts it "Satellite not only provides more complete coverage including the coeasn, but also integrates localised urban warming..NOAA does not use this prize resource in tracking change".

No they don't there are flaws using just satelite and just observations, combined they are much stronger and more accurate. Funnily enough combined they still show the same level of warming. !!!!!

He keeps banging on about USHCN, but then extrapolates a decrease in rural stations as if it effects NOAA's global temperature figures (It Doesn't) !.

The big reduction of rural stations (which he claims led a warm bias and removed many of colder stations) occured between 1988 and 1992, was there a big increase in US 48 temps during this period ?, sorry must of missed that, maybe because it didn't exist.

We all know there has been an increase in urbanisation over the last 50 years, but has there been an increase of urbanisation around the recording stations in the last 10(since he's claiming that recent warming is caused by UHI effect). I think the answer is no.

However in the last 20 years the atmosphere is much cleaner in American cities due to a reduction in pollution, better insultation as well leads to a reduction in the amount of residual heat a building now emits.

I am sorry this is very poor cherry picking which really doesnt make sense.

I very-much suspect that you are right, Ice. That said, without INDEPENDENT auditing, the 'conspiracy theories' will continue unabated. IMO, these purveyors of the 'CO2 isn't really a GHG' variety will only shut-up once their pseudoscientific claims are put to rest by proper (unbiased) independent auditing???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...