Meto Update: Scientist Acquires Raw Station Data

[Iceberg]

I was talking about the PDF VP, sorry for not making that clear, this has nothing to do with making figures public.

I am reading through the CFP article now, however there are alot of problems with it.

[Devonian]

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???

Ah, but who is independent? Answer in two parts. For those of us who accept the figures it's peer review and the scrutiny that is the basis of how science established things, and for those not convinced by that it has to be the like of SM and AW because, obviously, if you don't trust what science says, if you mistrust it, you look to those outside mainstream, broad science.

Now, 'science' as a whole is never going to be convinced by the like of SM or AW (because, as we all acknowledge, they're not unbiased and they are self appointed)...so we will continue to go round and round until the evidence is more conclusive than it is now.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Devonian

[Iceberg]

Here's a quicky,

Where is the data from for the Figure 1 graph. ?

To be honest the 2008 data is a joke, as Dev has already pointed out why choose a data range from 2002 to end at what the reporter is knows is the lowest point. But even this aside.

Unless my eyes are not reading this correctly then looking at the first temperature dataset I can get my hands on HADCRU the figures are wrong as HADCRU did not record any negative figures in 2008, neither did GISS. The figures for UAH and MSU look wrong as well (a quick check proves this.)

UAH the great skeptics satelite temperature data set shows a warming trend of 0.13 per a decade,it has been going for 30 years so shows a warming trend of 0.39C in the last 30 years, If this guy is seriously suggesting that there was no warming between 1900 and 1979 then good for him, but he might find hiself rather alone.

There are good arguements for releasing the data freely, neither of those two links fit into this category unfortunately.

[Devonian]

Here's a quicky,

Where is the data from for the Figure 1 graph. ?

To be honest the 2008 data is a joke, as Dev has already pointed out why choose a data range from 2002 to end at what the reporter is knows is the lowest point. But even this aside.

Unless my eyes are not reading this correctly then looking at the first temperature dataset I can get my hands on HADCRU the figures are wrong as HADCRU did not record any negative figures in 2008, neither did GISS. The figures for UAH and MSU look wrong as well (a quick check proves this.)

UAH the great skeptics satelite temperature data set shows a warming trend of 0.13 per a decade,it has been going for 30 years so shows a warming trend of 0.39C in the last 30 years, If this guy is seriously suggesting that there was no warming between 1900 and 1979 then good for him, but he might find hiself rather alone.

There are good arguements for releasing the data freely, neither of those two links fit into this category unfortunately.

It's odd Ice. If you follow the link of the graph to the WUWT article it's from, it's claimed the figures are based on an anomaly 1/1979-1/08. So the bloke (no idea who he is) who did the graph used his own anomalies - which confuses things. Why do that? Also, why graph only 8 years?

I think we know the answers

[Methuselah]

Ah, but who is independent? Answer in two parts. For those of us who accept the figures it's peer review and the scrutiny that is the basis of how science established things, and for those not convinced by that it has to be the like of SM and AW because, obviously, if you don't trust what science says, if you mistrust it, you look to those outside mainstream, broad science.

Now, 'science' as a whole is never going to be convinced by the like of SM or AW (because, as we all acknowledge, they're not unbiased and they are self appointed)...so we will continue to go round and round until the evidence is more conclusive than it is now.

I agree, Dev. I learned my science from practising scientists; therefore, I tend towards the claims made by mainstream science. My scepticism is what a mainstream science education gave me; it doesn't derive from any kind of conspiracy-theory hokum!

I'm glad you asked that question; because, IMO, only genuine scientists are qualified to appraise the work of other scientists. Self-appointed 'defenders of the public good' are seldom qualified in this respect - however loud they shout??

[VillagePlank]

Ah, but who is independent? Answer in two parts. For those of us who accept the figures it's peer review and the scrutiny that is the basis of how science established things

Spot on. And further more, Mr Phil Jones, does publish changes to the HadCru3 set in mainstream scientific journals. A clear example is where the LI could not account for a rather large anomaly around 1950/60. I couldn't for the life of me figure it out until someone posted a link to a letter to the editor, by Phil Jones, explaining that Hadley knew that this was a problem, and were looking into ways of correcting it, of which, I might add, were to be published as corrections.

Doesn't quite seem like avoiding scrutiny, rather more like protecting commercial interests, to me.

[jethro]

I think you're missing the point a little here.

There's no doubt that UHI effect exists, the controversy is over the corrections applied to remove the contamination. The temperature data released by all parties is twiddled and tweaked to within an inch of its' life. We have no way of knowing how accurate any of it is, unless the data is released for scrutiny.

Even on a very basic level like our discussions on here, there is dispute over which data set to use, which is most accurate, which is most trusted. Iceberg quotes one, Blast quotes another, can any of us say which one is right?

Earlier in the year this was released:

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/cms-filesystem-action?file=user_files/jrl/misc/vtt/jrl_misc_vtt_doc-one-pager.pdf

It shows some of the problems in achieving an accurate record and reconciling all the different data sets.

"First, there were unrecognized errors in the observations. Although some errors remain, these have been corrected to a considerable extent and the nature of the errors is much better understood. ".

Errors are made.

[VillagePlank]

There's no doubt that UHI effect exists, the controversy is over the corrections applied to remove the contamination. The temperature data released by all parties is twiddled and tweaked to within an inch of its' life. We have no way of knowing how accurate any of it is, unless the data is released for scrutiny.

I have to admit I am a little foggy on the UHIE on temperature. If, say, the UHIE is significant, then, surely, it is adding to the overall climate, albeit in some small fashion, and given that urbanisation is increasing, then, surely, that should have, perhaps tiny, an influence on the climate - in which case it should be recorded and added to the climate figures accordingly. Heat is, after all heat, and if it's there it needs to be recorded, and not factored out.

Of course, placing a weather station in a hot oven is a complete different story, which, I suppose, is what this is all about.

[Iceberg]

Even on a very basic level like our discussions on here, there is dispute over which data set to use, which is most accurate, which is most trusted. Iceberg quotes one, Blast quotes another, can any of us say which one is right?

Errors are made, I don't think anybody is suggesting that they are perfectly representative.

WRT myself and Blast, The point I've tried to make it that 90% of the time the data does match up, the trends whether you use BFTP's or the other data sets are the same (see the 0.39C of warming shown by UAH that I showed above).

There is no evidence that the UHI effect isn't being reasonably accurately applied and plenty of correlation evidence to prove that it is.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

An update on the situation with CRU data. As I understand it, McIntyre is still trying to get the data released officially, even though he has the data, having downloaded it from CRU's own public servers (the "mole" was CRU itself, and when CRU found out they purged pretty much all their old files of data, so now little is publicly accessible).

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6789

CRU Responds

by Steve McIntyre on August 11th, 2009

CRU has posted up an undated webpage on data availability here , responding to the various recent FOI requests for station data and confidentiality agreements. Here they "list the agreements that we still hold".

I'm preparing a post on this extraordinary document and am posting this thread as a placeholder for now.

Instalment 1 (Aug 11 8 pm) :

Obviously this is a pretty pathetic combination of excuses and whining. Both CRU and the Met Office should be cringing with embarrassment. Obviously there will be more shoes to drop. But let me reiterate one of my own baseline positions (and one which I do not wish to argue about with readers.) Regardless of how pitiful CRU's management of data and contracts turns out to be, it is not my position that this is an excuse for delaying climate policy until the original data is found and documented. Neither do I think that any exigencies of the big picture excuse negligence in the small picture.

Lost Data

Surely the most surprising revelation is their confession that they've lost all their original data - all they have is their "value added version". They say:

BTW, after I post this I'm going to choose the "-Close this topic" option from the drop-down box at the bottom of the page. I want to see what it does. Does it mean the topic starter can close down discussions?

I like the idea of self-responsibility that entails.

So, this thread might as well close down now. The discussion about how UHI affects the temperature record is off topic and any new significant update to this story, such as McIntyre's analysis of the CRU data, will probably require a thread of its own.

[Thundery wintry showers]

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090812/full/460787a.html

...and, in particular:

Jones says he can't fulfil the requests because of confidentiality agreements signed in the 1990s with some nations, including Spain, Germany, Bahrain and Norway, that restrict the data to academic use. In some cases, says Jones, the agreements were made verbally, and in others the written records were mislaid during a move.

He says he is now working to make the data publicly available online. As Nature went to press, Jones was expected to post a statement on the CRU website to that effect, including any existing confidentiality agreements. Jones says any such data release "needs to be done in a systematic way".

"We're trying to make them all available," says Jones. "We're consulting with all the meteorological services — about 150 members [of the World Meteorological Organization] — and will ask them if they are happy to release the data." A spokesperson for the Met Office confirmed this, saying "we are happy for CRU to take the lead on this, as they are their data".

But getting the all-clear from other nations won't be without its challenges, says Jones, who estimates that it could take several months. In addition, some nations may object if they make money by selling their wind, sunshine and precipitation data.

Quite revealing.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

In some cases, says Jones, the agreements were made verbally, and in others the written records were mislaid during a move.

The dog ate my homework!

There is still more on this story to run. If they get all the information online as they did before but on a more official webpage that has to be a good thing. I wonder whether McIntyre will view this as a cue to work through the data he has?

[jethro]

This chap's less than impressed:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/08/we-lost-original-data.html

[Thundery wintry showers]

The dog ate my homework!

Something tells me that if Jones was a climate sceptic, the probability of you responding in that way would be rather oval shaped.

I find the notion of misplaced datasets and confidentiality agreements entirely plausible. Lack of suitable archiving happens all over the place as new, homogenised versions of datasets appear and old, raw ones are lost. In this quote:

All reports from the network of stations recommended by the regional associations as necessary to provide a good representation of climate . . .

...presumably some national centres saw some of their data as "not recommended as necessary" with the idea of making more money out of them.

I don't think it's right that this happens- the protection of commercial interests at the expense of a more open debate on the methodologies used to create climate data- but it doesn't make it a conspiracy to twist data to fit AGW agendas. The world is bulging with cases where the desire to maximise profits comes at the expense of the greater good. Nor does the fact that an analysis contains potential flaws make it meaningless, as some people in Jethro's link imply (it's worth having a look at the responses btw, some very interesting ones in there).

I think Steve McIntyre is quite well-established as having anti-AGW axes to grind and that this, more than anything else, may be why he has had some less than helpful responses. Asking for clarification on scientific work is a good thing to be doing, but I rather suspect that if the data showed cooling McIntyre wouldn't have even contemplated going down this route.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

I think Steve McIntyre is quite well-established as having anti-AGW axes to grind

Do you differentiate between someone who has "anti-AGW axes to grind" and "has anti-skeptic axes to grind". Do you think I have an "anti-AGW axe to grind"?

What I mean is, are you insinuating something with the phrase "axes to grind" and, if so, do you have any specific information to back up this allegation concerning Mr McIntyre's unblemished reputation as an academic and scientist?

[Thundery wintry showers]

People with axes to grind is a simple concept really- I think of it in terms of people trying to find things to back up their pre-set agenda/view on a subject, rather than being objective about it.

Some of his work is certainly having positive effects, encouraging the mainstream scientists to be more open with their data- which can only be good, really. There is also nothing wrong, in itself, with being critical and sceptical. But you won't often see McIntyre querying anything that disagrees with AGW but you will regularly see him querying anything that agrees with it. To call him "unblemished" is something of a stretch considering the amount of criticism he gets at RealClimate.org. True, Realclimate.org isn't the most non-biased of sources either, but it's pretty safe to say that McIntyre's reputation is no more unblemished than those of the Hadley Centre and CRU, as their reputations are blemished only by similarly biased sites from the "other side".

I rather think you have a high opinion of McIntyre and a low opinion of the MetO and CRU because the former disagrees with AGW and the latter agree with it, rather than anything to do with how good their arguments are.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

People with axes to grind is a simple concept really- I think of it in terms of people trying to find things to back up their pre-set agenda/view on a subject, rather than being objective about it.

That's not how he works though - you besmirch his reputation to suggest otherwise.

He's an auditor. His science is testing hypotheses about whether "biases" or simply "errors" have affected models and statistical products relating to the study of climate.

It has never been about "disproving AGW". That does however seem to be the perception of those who don't want their work tested for bias and error.

Some of his work is certainly having positive effects, encouraging the mainstream scientists to be more open with their data- which can only be good, really. There is also nothing wrong, in itself, with being critical and sceptical. But you won't often see McIntyre querying anything that disagrees with AGW but you will regularly see him querying anything that agrees with it.

How do you know he doesn't, and if I produced proof that he does would you change your mind? Shall I produce proof?

If his work is focussed on AGW warming that because that is where most work is done and what is of interest to policy makers.

To call him "unblemished" is something of a stretch considering the amount of criticism he gets at RealClimate.org. True, Realclimate.org isn't the most non-biased of sources either, but it's pretty safe to say that McIntyre's reputation is no more unblemished than those of the Hadley Centre and CRU, as their reputations are blemished only by similarly biased sites from the "other side".

Again you throw words around without justifying them. Mr McIntyre has an unblemished reputation in academia and science. If you want to smear his reputation, kindly support the allegation with a minimum of fact.

I rather think you have a high opinion of McIntyre and a low opinion of the MetO and CRU because the former disagrees with AGW and the latter agree with it, rather than anything to do with how good their arguments are.

That is a very simplistic view of my psychology you have there. It's incorrect. What can I do to convince you of this?

Edited August 13, 2009 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Thundery wintry showers]

That's not how he works though - you besmirch his reputation to suggest otherwise.

He's an auditor. His science is testing hypotheses about whether "biases" or simply "errors" have affected models and statistical products relating to the study of climate.

It has never been about "disproving AGW". That does however seem to be the perception of those who don't want their work tested for bias and error.

...

How do you know he doesn't, and if I produced proof that he does would you change your mind? Shall I produce proof?

If his work is focussed on AGW warming that because that is where most work is done and what is of interest to policy makers.

That's not the impression that comes out of his ClimateAudit site. I have a very strong suspicion that he rarely queries data that doesn't support AGW because I have read a large number of his articles. Note "rarely", not necessarily "never". But by all means, show me proof if you have any.

Again you throw words around without justifying them. Mr McIntyre has an unblemished reputation in academia and science. If you want to smear his reputation, kindly support the allegation with a minimum of fact.

Ah I see, so Mr McIntyre has an unblemished reputation even though RealClimate.org has many digs at him, yet Prof. Jones has a blemished reputation because some sceptic sites have many digs at him? Hmm...

That is a very simplistic view of my psychology you have there. It's incorrect. What can I do to convince you of this?

Perhaps by making your criticisms and conspiracy theories more consistently applied, as opposed to being applied only to those who agree with AGW.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

That's not the impression that comes out of his ClimateAudit site. I have a very strong suspicion that he rarely queries data that doesn't support AGW because I have read a large number of his articles. Note "rarely", not necessarily "never". But by all means, show me proof if you have any.

Have you dropped Mr McIntyre an email to ask? You're making a lot of accusations and allegations based on "impressions" and "strong suspicions". I don't believe either of those things stand up in court.

Ah I see, so Mr McIntyre has an unblemished reputation even though RealClimate.org has many digs at him, yet Prof. Jones has a blemished reputation because some sceptic sites have many digs at him? Hmm...

You're putting words into my mouth. I've not engaged in this debate.

Perhaps by making your criticisms and conspiracy theories more consistently applied, as opposed to being applied only to those who agree with AGW.

Again, I don't consider that you are attacking me with this sentence. It's weird reading it.

[Devonian]

Have you dropped Mr McIntyre an email to ask? You're making a lot of accusations and allegations based on "impressions" and "strong suspicions". I don't believe either of those things stand up in court.

I can remember the kind of things said over on CA at it's start, the allegations of lies and fraud and the rest that littered the place and that SM let stand. I also remember a sock puppet by the name of Nigel Persaud...

[Thundery wintry showers]

Have you dropped Mr McIntyre an email to ask? You're making a lot of accusations and allegations based on "impressions" and "strong suspicions". I don't believe either of those things stand up in court.

An extremely ironic thing to be levelling at me (and yes I note that veiled reference to legal action) considering your attacks on the Met Office earlier.

I don't remember you dropping emails to the Met Office to ask them about your accusations about them, either. Or, for that matter, your accusations ever exceeding the "strong suspicions" category.

Again, I don't consider that you are attacking me with this sentence. It's weird reading it.

See above.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

An extremely ironic thing to be levelling at me (and yes I note that veiled reference to legal action) considering your attacks on the Met Office earlier.

I'll let the reader go back and judge for themselves.

I've never claimed the Met Office is an institution with endemic corruption at the highest levels where they just pick the CET out of a tomboller - that is something that, in all seriousness, I don't believe at all. It's not how the world works.

I believe people can make mistakes, and I believe Met Office has made mistakes, but that is not a crime, and not a reason to withhold data.

So you claim I make "attacks on the Met Office" but you leave this accusation about me unsubstantiated, as if my comments that the Met Office / CRU should comply with a Freedom of Information request were a legal issue!

In any case, they are now releasing the information - far from "attacks" it seems they agree with me.

I don't remember you dropping emails to the Met Office to ask them about your accusations about them, either. Or, for that matter, your accusations ever exceeding the "strong suspicions" category.

I'm not an academic with a reasonable entitlement to the information, Mr McIntyre was. Me sending the Met Office an email would simply be wasting their and my time.

Mr McIntyre and a number of other scientists and academics sent the letters and the request and it looks like they have got a result in the end.

I think we all look forward to an analysis of the data. Mr McIntyre has said all along he doesn't expect to find anything "spectacular" in it. That's not why he wants the data. He's just wants to audit it.

[Devonian]

I'll let the reader go back and judge for themselves.

I've never claimed the Met Office is an institution with endemic corruption at the highest levels where they just pick the CET out of a tomboller - that is something that, in all seriousness, I don't believe at all. It's not how the world works.

I believe people can make mistakes, and I believe Met Office has made mistakes, but that is not a crime, and not a reason to withhold data.

So you claim I make "attacks on the Met Office" but you leave this accusation about me unsubstantiated, as if my comments that the Met Office / CRU should comply with a Freedom of Information request were a legal issue!

In any case, they are now releasing the information - far from "attacks" it seems they agree with me.

I'm not an academic with a reasonable entitlement to the information, Mr McIntyre was.

Steven McIntrye is not a academic in the sense we all understand of the word. He is an retired mining engineer and blog owner.

Me sending the Met Office an email would simply be wasting their and my time.

Mr McIntyre and a number of other scientists and academics sent the letters and the request and it looks like they have got a result in the end.

I think we all look forward to an analysis of the data. Mr McIntyre has said all along he doesn't expect to find anything "spectacular" in it. That's not why he wants the data. He's just wants to audit it.

He is a self appointed auditer. I would no more trust a self appointed auditer than I would a self appointed policeman.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Steven McIntrye is not a academic in the sense we all understand of the word. He is an retired mining engineer and blog owner.

You paint him in his most flattering terms!

It depends what your definition of an academic is. He's been published multiple peer-reviewed journals and is cited in IPCC AR4. So has Professor Phil Jones.

If you don't consider Stephen McIntyre an academic, where do you set the bar?

Edited August 13, 2009 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Devonian]

You paint him in his most flattering terms!

It depends what your definition of an academic is. He's been published multiple peer-reviewed journals and is cited in IPCC AR4. So has Professor Phil Jones.

If you don't consider Stephen McIntyre an academic, where do you set the bar?

Good question.

Active in a related field via a university or associated body (so, for climate, active at say a relevant university (Reading, UEA or Manchester come to mind) or working for the Met O, or in the US say NOAA), or originator of original research (so phd or similar). Or, published in peer reviewed media (with the more work published the greater credibility - McIntrye has one paper I think).

I don't think being a retired mining engineer and blog owner qualifies someone to speak with authority about climate. If it does then I'm similarly qualified and could set up a blog and, bingo, I become a world climate expert???

Edited August 13, 2009 by Devonian