Met Office & Climate Data

**Jexiel** · December 05, 2009, 01:43 AM

It seems the release of the emails and documents has had a deeper impact than thought. The UK's Met Office will review their climate data to re-assess its temperature results and make sure they are as accurate as possible. However, an unlikely player is trying to stop them: the UK Government.

Article from Times Online

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Originally Posted by Times Online

From The Times
December 5, 2009
Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data
Ben Webster, Environment Editor

The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.

The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.

The Met Office database is one of three main sources of temperature data analysis on which the UN’s main climate change science body relies for its assessment that global warming is a serious danger to the world. This assessment is the basis for next week’s climate change talks in Copenhagen aimed at cutting CO2 emissions.

The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.

The Met Office works closely with the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), which is being investigated after e-mails written by its director, Phil Jones, appeared to show an attempt to manipulate temperature data and block alternative scientific views.

The Met Office’s published data showing a warming trend draws heavily on CRU analysis. CRU supplied all the land temperature data to the Met Office, which added this to its own analysis of sea temperature data.

Since the stolen e-mails were published, the chief executive of the Met Office has written to national meteorological offices in 188 countries asking their permission to release the raw data that they collected from their weather stations.

The Met Office is confident that its analysis will eventually be shown to be correct. However, it says it wants to create a new and fully open method of analysing temperature data.

The development will add to fears that influential sceptics in other countries, including the US and Australia, are using the controversy to put pressure on leaders to resist making ambitious deals for cutting CO2.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change admitted yesterday that it needed to consider the full implications of the e-mails and whether they cast doubt on any of the evidence for man-made global warming.

A few notes:

A) The Met Office relies heavily on CRU analysis. Did the Met Office draw from the "raw" data or the "value-added" data?

B) Why does the UK Government oppose to a re-assessment when the Met Office (part of the Government) assures the results will be correct?

C) Why is the UK Government getting involved in science anyways?

**~~removeduser_487563287433~~** · December 05, 2009, 02:42 AM

Well, the article says it will be seized upon and distorted by sceptics, Jexiel.

**Jexiel** · December 05, 2009, 02:53 AM

"seized upon"? What is this, climate kidnapping?

Why is the UK Government afraid of skeptics? If the re-assessment is done openly and adheres to established scientific rules (scientific method) there should be nothing to worry about. The truth will come out eventually; the Met Office virtually guaranteed it. The UK Government has no real justification for its position unless they are truly concerned the results will not be as "dreadful" as they want them to be. Too much $$$ riding on this so far, no?

Edit: The BBC reports that the Met Office will be releasing their raw data. This report runs in contradiction to the one published by the Times Online.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

More confusion!

**Phier** · December 05, 2009, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by Ferrets54

Well, the article says it will be seized upon and distorted by sceptics, Jexiel.

OH NOES!!!!!!

Its not a religion, but its being treated as such. Do not let the heretics destroy your faith eh?

**~~removeduser_487563287433~~** · December 05, 2009, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by Phier

OH NOES!!!!!!

Its not a religion, but its being treated as such. Do not let the heretics destroy your faith eh?

Oh yeah, the decade old thing that has already been resolved.

Relevant.

**~~removeduser_487563287433~~** · December 05, 2009, 03:31 AM

Well, I suppose, quite rightly, that the UK Government hardly sees a string of emails as unturning a globally (including the USA and China) accepted science. But the thing is Jexiel - when this investigation comes back with that conclusion, you wont believe it. Well, you wont even hear about it, because it wont be reported on the sort of blog you read.

**Jexiel** · December 05, 2009, 03:48 AM

Right. Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

Now, let's discuss this as adults (I'm assuming you are one). According to the Times, there will be an investigation; according to the BBC, the raw data used by the Met Office will be released. According to both the Times and the BBC, the Met Office works closely with the CRU; is the raw data very similar to the CRU raw data? If so, why didn't the CRU simply request it from the Met Office?

Originally Posted by Met Office

The MO has written to 188 countries for permission to publish the historic data it says proves that the world is warming up due to man-made emissions.

Why couldn't the CRU do that?

Next point. If the raw data is going to be released, an independent panel composed by credible, leading scientists as unbiased as may be found should be appointed to analyse the data. Establish a procedure accepted by almost all to analyse said data and maintain the process as transparent and open possible; perhaps even force those scientists to sign a statement putting their reputations on the line.

Final point. Once I see evidence and results devoid of ideology and politics then I will support said findings. In the meantime, I will remain skeptic (just like any good scientist).

**~~removeduser_487563287433~~** · December 05, 2009, 04:02 AM

Because the CRU say they have lost their data. If they took it from the MO you would interpret that as a cover up, too.

**Jexiel** · December 05, 2009, 04:14 AM

Or they can say "we lost our original data; however, the Met Office has nearly identical raw data we had and you can check theirs to validate our work." Voila! Unless, of course, you have no problem reaching conclusions based on less-than-reliable data.

You do understand that regardless of the human contribution to the climate (because there is some level of contribution) CO2 will continue to be emitted into the atmosphere and the climate will continue changing, no?

**~~removeduser_487563287433~~** · December 05, 2009, 05:00 AM

Near identical is your own interpretation. "Works closely" is what the article actually says. Bias much?

**Musthavename** · December 05, 2009, 05:32 AM

Reinvestigating data like this is what any respectable scientific organisation should be doing when doubt comes into the equation.

The fact that the Government wants to stop them shows they have a political motivation for this. Wether it be a way to implement taxes, a method of scaremongering the electorate, or simply because they're of the opinion that any sceptic is the equivalent of a holocaust denier. It doesn't really matter which reason the government have for doing it, but to simply want to stop an organisation from carrying out research because they might not like what they hear or people will think, is ridiculous.

**Gaidin** · December 05, 2009, 09:24 AM

Hey look, Jexiel still doesn't understand homogenized data.

Though I'm liking the fact that the MO wants to go over work. It's what a respectable SciOrg should do after something like this.

**Denny Crane!** · December 05, 2009, 02:00 PM

Oh yes Jexiel is so bad for wanting data reanalysed. Obviously doesn't meet the Ferrets/New Labour seal of approval where we have to take everything on faith.

And damn the science to. Who needs to re-examine data, its not like they're scientists or anything? doing the largest most complicated probably most hard to understand modelling and predictive strategies that should never really stop being worked on.

God forbid they be scientists...

**~~removeduser_487563287433~~** · December 05, 2009, 02:06 PM

Because that's totally what I said. The New Labour reference is characteristically bewildering.

**Denny Crane!** · December 05, 2009, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by Ferrets54

Because that's totally what I said. The New Labour reference is characteristically bewildering.

Your posts are remarkably like listening to a new labour politician these days.

that the UK Government hardly sees a string of emails as unturning a globally (including the USA and China) accepted science.

Globally accepted science? It isn't like a steak, you don't just cook it and then it is done. You DO keep re-examining evidence and remodelling and researching. Especially considering this is to do with subjects that experts freely admit they barely understand like examining local environments particularly around the poles and other methods particularly the modelling which as JP says can never be that solid. You do keep working on it that is science, it doesn't just stop. There is no such thing as accepted science. Consensus doesn't make a fact. And you don't spend billions of pounds and commit hundreds of billions to schemes without massive and continuous research.

**~~removeduser_487563287433~~** · December 05, 2009, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by Denny Crane!

Your posts are remarkably like listening to a new labour politician these days.

that the UK Government hardly sees a string of emails as unturning a globally (including the USA and China) accepted science.

Globally accepted science? It isn't like a steak, you don't just cook it and then it is done. You DO keep re-examining evidence and remodelling and researching. Especially considering this is to do with subjects that experts freely admit they barely understand like examining local environments particularly around the poles and other methods particularly the modelling which as JP says can never be that solid. You do keep working on it that is science, it doesn't just stop. There is no such thing as accepted science. Consensus doesn't make a fact. And you don't spend billions of pounds and commit hundreds of billions to schemes without massive and continuous research.

Okay. For the sake of argument would you please explain to me why, if global warming is the most elaborate hoax ever concocted (which is what it would have to be, and goodness knows the motivation behind it) then why the Governments of the EU, Brazil and the USA are already about to begin a summit having already commited to cutting carbon emissions (not to mention China's new commitments)?