[Vision2020] CRU Climate Data "Over 95%" Available: NASA (GISS), NOAA (NCDC) Data Independently Confirm CRU Results

[Ted Moffett]

The University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit may not be legally able
to make all of the raw data for its temperature records public, unless they
can obtain permission from various National Meteorological Services that
hold rights to the data.

Surely you perceive the distorting bias, the false implications, in this
hack news story from "The Register" that you offered?  This article is
contributing to misunderstandings in the public regarding climate science.

It begins by stating that the Climate Research Unit temperature record is
"The world's source for global temperature record," when it is only one of
various data sets.  This is misleading.  It should state "One of the world's
sources for global temperature record..."  The CRU temperature record could
be tossed, and other independent temperature records (GISS, NCDC) could be
used by climate scientists.

To quote CRU scientist Phil Jones:

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate

"Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely
independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate
Data Center in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore
our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves;
there is no need for anyone to manipulate them."
---------

The article quotes an Australian climate scientist who is quoting CRU
scientist Phil Jones making a damming statement, without naming them.
Someone has something to hide, or is fabricating, if they quote a scientist
without naming them, which is rather hilarious and ironic given this article
is finding fault with CRU for not supplying data.

And the following overgeneralizing statement, not backed by any verified
example of error(s) in CRU raw data, implies scientists around the world are
idiots, as if they will only use data from CRU(not various available data
sets, to cross check etc.), resulting in "the science," the quotes implying
questionable science, resulting from possible CRU errors:

So any errors in CRU <http://www.john-daly.com/cru/index.htm> cascade around
the world, and become part of "the science".
----------
The CRU error (on their website in 2001) that the article provides a web
link to, which was corrected, has nothing to do with errors in the raw data
that article is claiming CRU lost, destroyed or is refusing to grant access
to.  This error on the CRU website did not become part of "the science," as
it was rather obvious to any competent scientist that they made an error, so
this statement if simply false.

If this article was objective, it might have included brief mention of these
facts below, that confirm CRU temperature records, for balance in reporting:

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate

There is excellent agreement on the course of temperature change since 1881
between the data set that we contribute to (HadCRUT3) and two other,
independent analyses of worldwide temperature measurements. There are no
statistically significant differences between the warming trends in the
three series since the start of the 20th century. The three independent
global temperature data series have been assembled by:

• CRU and the Met Office Hadley Centre (HadCRUT3) in the UK.
• The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) of the National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Asheville, NC, USA.
• The Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), part of the National
Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) in New York.
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On 11/30/09, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I'm glad they are working towards total transparency now.  They weren't as
> of last August, as you can see in this article:
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/
>
> So maybe something good is coming out of this whole fiasco.
>
> Paul
>
> Ted Moffett wrote:
>
>> Below read release from the University of East Anglia wesbite, regarding
>> the Climate Research Unit's data availability, Freedom of Information Act
>> requests, the e-mails stolen from their institution, and clarifications
>> regarding the wording "hiding the decline" and "trick" that appeared in
>> these e-mails, that have been in the media recently.  Some graphs at this
>> website page at the bottom are not pasted in, only the text:
>>
>> http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate
>>
>>
>>  CRU climate data already ‘over 95%’ available (28 November)
>>
>> Over 95% of the CRU climate data set concerning land surface temperatures
>> has been accessible to climate researchers, sceptics and the public for
>> several years the University of East Anglia has confirmed.
>>
>> “It is well known within the scientific community and particularly those
>> who are sceptical of climate change that over 95% of the raw station data
>> has been accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network for
>> several years.  We are quite clearly not hiding information which seems to
>> be the speculation on some blogs and by some media commentators,” commented
>> the University’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement
>> Professor Trevor Davies.
>>
>> The University will make all the data accessible as soon as they are
>> released from a range of non-publication agreements.  Publication will be
>> carried out in collaboration with the Met Office Hadley Centre.
>>
>> The procedure for releasing these data, which are mainly owned by National
>> Meteorological Services (NMSs) around the globe, is by direct contact
>> between the permanent representatives of NMSs (in the UK the Met Office).
>> “We are grateful for the necessary support of the Met Office in requesting
>> the permissions for releasing the information but understand that responses
>> may take several months and that some countries may refuse permission due to
>> the economic value of the data,” continued Professor Davies.
>>
>> The remaining data, to be published when permissions are given, generally
>> cover areas of the world where there are fewer data collection stations.
>>
>> “CRU’s full data will be published in the interests of research
>> transparency when we have the necessary agreements. It is worth reiterating
>> that our conclusions correlate well to those of other scientists based on
>> the separate data sets held by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
>> Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
>> (GISS),” concluded Professor Davies.
>>
>>
>> *The University of East Anglia has previously released statements from
>> Prof Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, Prof Phil Jones, head
>> of the Climatic Research Unit, and from CRU.
>>
>> Statement from Professor Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research*
>>
>> The publication of a selection of the emails and data stolen from the
>> Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has led to some questioning of the climate
>> science research published by CRU and others. There is nothing in the stolen
>> material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others,
>> on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the
>> highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation. CRU’s
>> peer-reviewed publications are consistent with, and have contributed to, the
>> overwhelming scientific consensus that the climate is being strongly
>> influenced by human activity. The interactions of the atmosphere, oceans,
>> land, and ice mean that the strongly-increasing concentrations of greenhouse
>> gases in the atmosphere do not produce a uniform year-on-year increase in
>> global temperature. On time-scales of 5-10 years, however, there is a broad
>> scientific consensus that the Earth will continue to warm, with attendant
>> changes in the climate, for the foreseeable future. It is important, for all
>> countries, that this warming is slowed down, through substantial reductions
>> in greenhouse gas emissions to reduce the most dangerous impacts of climate
>> change. Respected international research groups, using other data sets, have
>> come to the same conclusion.
>>
>> The University of East Anglia and CRU are committed to scientific
>> integrity, open debate and enhancing understanding. This includes a
>> commitment to the international peer-review system upon which progress in
>> science relies. It is this tried and tested system which has underpinned the
>> assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is through
>> that process that we can engage in respectful and informed debate with
>> scientists whose analyses appear not to be consistent with the current
>> overwhelming consensus on climate change
>>
>> The publication of a selection of stolen data is the latest example of a
>> sustained and, in some instances, a vexatious campaign which may have been
>> designed to distract from reasoned debate about the nature of the urgent
>> action which world governments must consider to mitigate, and adapt to,
>> climate change. We are committed to furthering this debate despite being
>> faced with difficult circumstances related to a criminal breach of our
>> security systems and our concern to protect colleagues from the more extreme
>> behaviour of some who have responded in irrational and unpleasant ways to
>> the publication of personal information.
>>
>> There has been understandable interest in the progress and outcome of the
>> numerous requests under information legislation for large numbers of the
>> data series held by CRU. The University takes its responsibilities under the
>> Freedom of Information Act 2000, Environmental Information Regulations 2004,
>> and the Data Protection Act 1998 very seriously and has, in all cases,
>> handled and responded to requests in accordance with its obligations under
>> each particular piece of legislation. Where appropriate, we have consulted
>> with the Information Commissioners Office and have followed their advice.
>>
>> In relation to the specific requests at issue here, we have handled and
>> responded to each request in a consistent manner in compliance with the
>> appropriate legislation. No record has been deleted, altered, or otherwise
>> dealt with in any fashion with the intent of preventing the disclosure of
>> all, or any part, of the requested information. Where information has not
>> been disclosed, we have done so in accordance with the provisions of the
>> relevant legislation and have so informed the requester.
>>
>> The Climatic Research Unit holds many data series, provided to the Unit
>> over a period of several decades, from a number of nationally-funded
>> institutions and other research organisations around the world, with
>> specific agreements made over restrictions in the dissemination of those
>> original data. All of these individual series have been used in CRU’s
>> analyses. It is a time-consuming process to attempt to gain approval from
>> these organisations to release the data. Since some of them were provided
>> decades ago, it has sometimes been necessary to track down the successors of
>> the original organisations. It is clearly in the public interest that these
>> data are released once we have succeeded in gaining the approval of
>> collaborators. Some who have requested the data will have been aware of the
>> scale of the exercise we have had to undertake. Much of these data are
>> already available from the websites of the Global Historical Climate Data
>> Network and the Goddard Institute for Space Science.
>>
>> Given the degree to which we collaborate with other organisations around
>> the world, there is also an understandable interest in the computer security
>> systems we have in place in CRU and UEA. Although we were confident that our
>> systems were appropriate, experience has shown that determined and skilled
>> people, who are prepared to engage in criminal activity, can sometimes hack
>> into apparently secure systems. Highly-protected government organisations
>> around the world have also learned this to their cost.
>>
>> We have, therefore, decided to conduct an independent review, which will
>> address the issue of data security, an assessment of how we responded to a
>> deluge of Freedom of Information requests, and any other relevant issues
>> which the independent reviewer advises should be addressed.
>>
>> *Statement from Professor Phil Jones, Head of the Climatic Research Unit,
>> University of East Anglia.*
>>
>> In the frenzy of the past few days, the most vital issue is being
>> overshadowed: we face enormous challenges ahead if we are to continue to
>> live on this planet.
>>
>> One has to wonder if it is a coincidence that this email correspondence
>> has been stolen and published at this time. This may be a concerted attempt
>> to put a question mark over the science of climate change in the run-up to
>> the Copenhagen talks.
>>
>> That the world is warming is based on a range of sources: not only
>> temperature records but other indicators such as sea level rise, glacier
>> retreat and less Arctic sea ice.
>>
>> Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely
>> independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate
>> Data Center in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore
>> our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves;
>> there is no need for anyone to manipulate them.
>>
>> We have been bombarded by Freedom of Information requests to release the
>> temperature data that are provided to us by meteorological services around
>> the world via a large network of weather stations. This information is not
>> ours to give without the permission of the meteorological services involved.
>> We have responded to these Freedom of Information requests appropriately and
>> with the knowledge and guidance of the Information Commissioner.
>>
>> We have stated that we hope to gain permission from each of these services
>> to publish their data in the future and we are in the process of doing so.
>>
>> My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read
>> well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly
>> written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used
>> between close colleagues.
>>
>> We are, and have always been, scrupulous in ensuring that our science
>> publications are robust and honest.
>> *CRU statement*
>>
>> Recently thousands of files and emails illegally obtained from a research
>> server at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have been posted on various
>> sites on the web. The emails relate to messages received or sent by the
>> Climatic Research Unit (CRU) over the period 1996-2009.
>>
>> A selection of these emails have been taken out of context and
>> misinterpreted as evidence that CRU has manipulated climate data to present
>> an unrealistic picture of global warming.
>>
>> This conclusion is entirely unfounded and the evidence from CRU research
>> is entirely consistent with independent evidence assembled by various
>> research groups around the world.
>>
>> There is excellent agreement on the course of temperature change since
>> 1881 between the data set that we contribute to (HadCRUT3) and two other,
>> independent analyses of worldwide temperature measurements. There are no
>> statistically significant differences between the warming trends in the
>> three series since the start of the 20th century. The three independent
>> global temperature data series have been assembled by:
>>
>> • CRU and the Met Office Hadley Centre (HadCRUT3) in the UK.
>> • The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) of the National Oceanographic
>> and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Asheville, NC, USA.
>> • The Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), part of the National
>> Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) in New York.
>>
>> The warming shown by the HadCRUT3 series between the averages of the two
>> periods (1850-99 and 2001-2005) was 0.76±0.19°C, and this is corroborated by
>> the other two data sets.
>>
>> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 4th Assessment
>> Report (AR4) published in 2007 concluded that the warming of the climate
>> system was unequivocal. This conclusion was based not only on the
>> observational temperature record, although this is the key piece of
>> evidence, but on multiple strands of evidence. These factors include:
>> long-term retreat of glaciers in most alpine regions of the world;
>> reductions in the area of the Northern Hemisphere (NH) snow cover during the
>> spring season; reductions in the length of the freeze season in many NH
>> rivers and lakes; reduction in Arctic sea-ice extent in all seasons, but
>> especially in the summer; increases in global average sea level since the
>> 19th century; increases in the heat content of the ocean and warming of
>> temperatures in the lower part of the atmosphere since the late 1950s.
>>
>> CRU has also been involved in reconstructions of temperature (primarily
>> for the Northern Hemisphere) from proxy data (non-instrumental sources such
>> as tree rings, ice cores, corals and documentary records). Similar
>> temperature reconstructions have been developed by numerous other groups
>> around the world. The level of uncertainty in this indirect evidence for
>> temperature change is much greater than for the picture of temperature
>> change shown by the instrumental data. But different reconstructions of
>> temperature change over a longer period, produced by different researchers
>> using different methods, show essentially the same picture of highly unusual
>> warmth across the NH during the 20th century. The principal conclusion from
>> these studies (summarized in IPCC AR4) is that the second half of the 20th
>> century was very likely (90% probable) warmer than any other 50-year period
>> in the last 500 years and likely (66% probable) the warmest in the past 1300
>> years.
>>
>> One particular, illegally obtained, email relates to the preparation of a
>> figure for the WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999.
>> This email referred to a “trick” of adding recent instrumental data to the
>> end of temperature reconstructions that were based on proxy data. The
>> requirement for the WMO Statement was for up-to-date evidence showing how
>> temperatures may have changed over the last 1000 years. To produce
>> temperature series that were completely up-to-date (i.e. through to 1999) it
>> was necessary to combine the temperature reconstructions with the
>> instrumental record, because the temperature reconstructions from proxy data
>> ended many years earlier whereas the instrumental record is updated every
>> month. The use of the word “trick” was not intended to imply any deception.
>>
>> Phil Jones comments further: “One of the three temperature reconstructions
>> was based entirely on a particular set of tree-ring data that shows a strong
>> correlation with temperature from the 19th century through to the mid-20th
>> century, but does not show a realistic trend of temperature after 1960. This
>> is well known and is called the ‘decline’ or ‘divergence’. The use of the
>> term ‘hiding the decline’ was in an email written in haste. CRU has not
>> sought to hide the decline. Indeed, CRU has published a number of articles
>> that both illustrate, and discuss the implications of, this recent tree-ring
>> decline, including the article that is listed in the legend of the WMO
>> Statement figure. It is because of this trend in these tree-ring data that
>> we know does not represent temperature change that I only show this series
>> up to 1960 in the WMO Statement.”
>>
>> The ‘decline’ in this set of tree-ring data should not be taken to mean
>> that there is any problem with the instrumental temperature data. As for the
>> tree-ring decline, various manifestations of this phenomenon have been
>> discussed by numerous authors, and its implications are clearly signposted
>> in Chapter 6 of the IPCC AR4 report.
>>
>> Included here is a copy of the figure used in the WMO statement, together
>> with an alternative version where the climate reconstructions and the
>> instrumental temperatures are shown separately.
>> ------------------------------------------
>>
>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> =======================================================
>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,  serving the
>> communities of the Palouse since 1994.                 http://www.fsr.net                               mailto:
>> Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20091201/4a6a0f7f/attachment-0001.html