Aussie weather data "discarded or misused" by Met Office


More errors?

Another diligent blogger spots yet more “minor” errors in the Met Office data:

A science blogger has uncovered a catalogue of errors in Met Office records that form a central part of the scientific evidence for global warming.

The mistakes, which led to the data from a large number of weather stations being discarded or misused, had been overlooked by professional scientists and were only discovered when the Met Office’s Hadley Centre made data publicly available in December after the “climategate” e-mail row.

Although the errors do not alter the bigger picture on climate change, they have been seized upon as a further sign that scientific institutions have not been sufficiently transparent. “It makes you wonder how many other problems there are in the data,” said John Graham-Cumming, the programmer who spotted the mistakes. “The whole idea of doing science without releasing your data is quite worrying.

After trying to reproduce figures shown in scientific publications and on the Met Office website, Dr Graham-Cumming identified a number of problems with the way measurements from Australian weather stations were being averaged. He found that data from seven stations were being accidentally discarded. Data from a further 112 Australian stations, 28 per cent of the total, were not being fully included in calculations of year-on-year temperature differences.

“I’m not a climate sceptic, I think it’s pretty sure that the world is warming up, but this does show why the raw data and not just the results should be available,” said Dr Graham-Cumming.

During the checking procedure Met Office officials discovered further problems with US temperature calculations. They realised that 121 of the US stations did not have unique identifier codes, meaning that data for these stations was either being overwritten or assigned to the wrong location.

Hardly instils a feeling of confidence. Especially when we’re about to spend trillions of dollars “tackling climate change” based on this data…

Read it here.

Andrew Neil grills Met Office head over forecasts


(H/t Climate Change Fraud)

The boss of the Met Office, who recently got a 25% performance related bonus, gets minced by Andrew Neil on the BBC:

Christopher Booker: Met Office gives us the warmist weather


Alarmism

Christopher Booker lifts the lid on the alarmism at the UK Met Office:

The reason the Met Office so persistently gets its seasonal forecasts wrong is that it has been hi-jacked from the role for which we pay it nearly £200 million a year, to become one of the world’s major propaganda engines for the belief in man-made global warming. Over the past three years, it has become a laughing stock for forecasts which are invariably wrong in the same direction.

The year 2007, it predicted, would be “the warmest ever” – just before global tempratures plunged by more than the entire net warming of the 20th century, Three years running it predicted warmer than average winters – as large parts of the northern hemisphere endured record cold and snowfalls. Last year’s “barbecue summer” was the third time running that predictions of a summer drier and warmer than average prefaced weeks of rain and cold. Last week the Met Office was again predicting that 2010 will be the “warmest year” on record, while Europe and the US look to be facing further weeks of intense cold.

What is not generally realised is that the UK Met Office has been, since 1990, at the very centre of the campaign to convince the world that it faces catastrophe through global warming. (Its website now proclaims it to be “the Met Office for Weather and Climate Change”.) Its then-director, Dr John Houghton, was the single most influential figure in setting up the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the chief driver of climate alarmism. Its Hadley Centre for Climate Change, along with the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU), was put in charge of the most prestigious of the four official global temperature records. In line with IPCC theory, its computers were programmed to predict that, as CO2 levels rose, temperatures would inevitably follow. From 1990 to 2007, the Department of the Environment gave the Met Office no less than £146 million for its “climate predictions programme”.

Read it here.

UK Met Office: worthless petition to prop up CRU


Pointless petition

Pointless petition

The Met Office is clearly rattled by the CRU revelations, and is running around like a headless chicken trying to drum up support for a petition claiming that climate science is as pure as the driven snow. It seems that anyone can sign, and pressure is being applied to those who don’t:

More than 1700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the “integrity and honesty” of global-warming research.

The initiative is a sign of how worried the Met Office is that emails stolen from the University of East Anglia are fuelling scepticism about man-made global warming at a critical moment in talks on carbon emissions. One scientist said that he felt under pressure to sign the circular or risk losing work. The Met Office admitted that many of the signatories did not work on climate change.

Met Office chief executive John Hirst and chief scientist Julia Slingo (pictured) wrote to 70 colleagues last Sunday asking them to sign “to defend our profession against this unprecedented attack to discredit us and the science of climate change”.

One scientist said he felt under pressure to sign. “The Met Office is a major employer of scientists and has long had a policy of only appointing and working with those who subscribe to their views on man-made global warming,” he said.

So if you don’t sign, you’ll be out on your ear. As Anthony Watts says, the next time anyone criticises the 31,000-odd signatures in The Petition Project, you can point them to this pile of nonsense.

Read it here.

UK Met Office Madness: 10 years to "save the world"


Hysterical

Hysterical

When I was growing up in the UK, the Met Office was the centre of cool-headed, scientific thinking. As a kid I used to listen to the Shipping Forecast and plot synoptic charts from the observations. So much has changed. The Met Office is now the centre for hysterical climate alarmism, devoid of any scientific impartiality, it is now just a political mouthpiece, as evidenced by its latest rant:

The world has just ten years to bring greenhouse gas emissions under control before the damage they cause become irreversible, the Met Office has warned.

Should nations fail to tackle the issue, giant mirrors in space, artificial trees and other so called “geo-engineering solutions” will be the only way to prevent disastrous overheating of the planet, the researchers warned.

More than 190 countries are gathered in Copenhagen for UN climate change talks aimed at keeping global temperature rise below 3.6F (2C).

Pollution [pollution? – Ed] from cars and factories will have to be declining at a rate of five per cent a year by 2020, the Met Office said.

World emissions are currently growing at around three per cent per annum and it will take massive investment in renewable energy, electric cars, nuclear and other green technologies to stop the growth.

It is estimated it would cost the world around 2.5 per cent of GDP or £150 for every person on the planet to make such massive cuts.

Jason Lowe, head of mitigation advice at the Met Office, said that if the world does not manage to turn the situation around in time then temperatures will rise by more than 2C “unless you can pull carbon dioxide out of the air or reflect sunlight back into space”.

Mr Lowe knows when he’s on to a good thing. If mitigation weren’t required, he’d be out of a job.

Read it here.

UK Met Office to re-examine and release 160 years of data


Releasing data

Releasing data

Will this be the start of a flood of data releases from organisations desperate not to be tarred with the CRU brush, I wonder? How many fudge factors will they find in the Met Office code?

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.

But this paragraph is the most amazing, and, given my previous post, not at all surprising:

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. (source)

Yep, that’s right. Move along. Nothing to see here. Don’t want the sceptics looking at the data, they might find something wrong with it! Sadly for the oafish Gordon Brown, the Met Office has in fact gone one step further, and will release the data into the public arena:

The Met Office has announced plans to release, early next week, station temperature records for over one thousand of the stations that make up the global land surface temperature record.

This subset is not a new global temperature record and it does not replace the HadCRUT, NASA GISS and NCDC global temperature records, all of which have been fully peer reviewed. We are confident this subset will show that global average land temperatures have risen over the last 150 years. [Well of course it will. We all know temperatures have risen in that period. What it doesn’t prove is man-made warming – Ed]

This subset release will continue the policy of putting as much of the station temperature record as possible into the public domain.

We intend that as soon as possible we will also publish the specific computer code that aggregates the individual station temperatures into the global land temperature record.

As soon as we have all permissions in place we will release the remaining station records – around 5000 in total – that make up the full land temperature record. We are dependant on international approvals to enable this final step and cannot guarantee that we will get permission from all data owners. (source)

%d bloggers like this: