Tuesday, December 8, 2009

MET office releases data and claims last decade is hottest on record

From the BBC website:

The UK Met Office has released data from more than 1,000 weather stations ... The decision to make the information available is the latest consequence of the hacked e-mails affair. ...

The Met Office figures indicate that the years since 2000 - the "noughties" - were on average about 0.18C (0.32F) warmer than years in the 1990s;...

Climate "sceptics" have claimed that temperatures have not been rising over the last decade. Of the two widely-used global temperature records, one - the UK HadCRUT3 record - shows an apparent plateau from 1998 to 2008.

But climate scientists point out that this result is achieved by taking 1998 as the starting point. Taking, for instance, 1997 or 1999 as the starting point, they argue, produces a different result.

Welcome to the world of cherry picking! Have a look at Roger Pielke Jr.'s Cherry Picker's Guide to Global Temperature Trends

What I find remarkable about this MET office news is that it combines the release of the CRU related dataset with a statement about the seriousness of the situation. This has to be seen as a political statement at what is perceived as a crucial juncture.


Anonymous said...

Met Office data is not CRU records. CRU still hasn't released the list of stations used in past research.

Anonymous said...

The "released data" is quite useless because it is the data after the adjustments (see "smoking gun"). What skeptics have been asking for a long time is the original raw data.

Unknown said...

Is the data helpful or just more 'adjusting to suit'



Francis Turner said...

The released data seems so far (I've not done an exhaustive examination) to not be as wildly adjusted as some others. At least my plot of DARWIN from this set looks like the unadjusted GHCN data in Willis' graph 7 in the Darwin post linked in an earlier post


Anonymous said...

Oops, they meant to say this decade is the hottest this century!

Anonymous said...

funny, of course the decade is the hottest in the modern temperature record. That is clear and definite. Only fools would deny that. All stupid talks about "smoking guns" and adjustments are so boring. Willis Eschenbachs "smoking gun" exploded spectacularly in his hands. His disgusting reference to Ground Zero shows his moral corruptness and his dishonesty. It is only stupid to talk about this.

What is the point of post, Mr. Grundmann? I cannot see it. It is true, this was the warmest decade, by far the warmest. Are you denying this? Really? It is true, you have to select well chosen points of time, to get negative trends. What is your problem with that? The press release is totally okay. You can use the HADCRUT Data, the MET data, the NOAA Data, the GISSTEMP, UAH, RSS, the Japanese data. Everything is quite similar.

BTW: your accusations at the end are only disgusting. You are really accusing the MET data manipulation? Do really think it is appropriate to accuse people fraud without proof? That are hard allegations. Please prove it immediately. Can you? What about the other temperature series from Japan, US and so on? Also Cheater? Explain yourself.

Anonymous said...

hallo Herr Grundmann,

I attacked you quite heavily in various posts today. I am sorry, but a reference to the "analysis" of Willis Eschenbach is just stupid.

But, I read a bit in your book about the Montreal protocol. The discussions about Ozone-CFCs and global heating are strikingly similar. Even some organizations and persons are the same, the tactics are the same, the arguments (against) are the same, the conspiracy theories are same (green mafia, Eco-fascists, etc).

So, my questions
- do you see the same similarity?
- you defended Marc Morano (the asshole). He was an assistant of Rush Limbaugh. You mentioned explicitly Limbaugh in your book as non-scientific, not so honest propagandist (I hope, I interpret it in the right way). Now, you defend Marc Morano? Why, why?
- "skeptics" also attack some complete basic science stuff now, in order to discredit the science. For example, CO2 is heavier than air, the Boltzmann constant is wrong, volcanoes emit more CO2, and so on.
- need more research
- hitting on some weak points only
- researches of other research areas write petition
- the collapse of the economy is predicted.

Do you see the same patterns? I do see. So, why are you hitting only to one side? Or do I misunderstand you?

of course, CO2 lowering has much more impact than forbidding CFCs. That is maybe the biggest difference.

@ReinerGrundmann said...

I am afraid there is a serious misunderstanding, Lieber Herr anonymous!
Nowhere did I 'defend' Morano. And I did not accuse the MET office of fraud. What I said was that they issued a well timed statement about temperature trends that is by the BBC's account debatable. Hence my reference to a website that gives you a detailed account on what trends in temperature you get depending on which year you start with. The BBC usually reports in a way which highlights the aspects of imminent danger. Only rarely do you get acknowledgement of temperature trends that do not fit into the master story of catastrophe.
An exception was Paul Hudson who on 9 Oct asked in a headline "What happened to global warming?"
and then started the article as follows:

"This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

Knappenberger's Cherry Picker guide states:

• For the past 8 years (96 months), no global warming is indicated by any of the five datasets.

• For the past 5 years (60 months), there is a statistically significant global cooling in all datasets.

• For the past 15 years, global warming has been occurring at a rate that is below the average climate model expected warming

I think these pieces of evidence need to be discussed and not brushed aside. You will not make these questions go away by way of insults.

There are many parallels between ozone and climate, and I will come back to these issues in due course.