Bishop Hill Climate cuttings 29
Jul 22, 2009 Climate Climate Audit had a fascinating post showing how the IPCC removed all hint of how clouds might mitigate any CO2-induced warming from their Fourth Assessment Report. Truly scandalous.
A new paper in Science found that the effect of soot in the air is less than previously thought. The implication is that the IPCC's estimates of how CO2 effects us is overdone.
Another new paper concludes that recent warming in the Arctic is due to natural variation rather than climate change.
One the warmist side of the argument, a new paper claimed that uncertainty over the impact of the various inputs into the climate system made it more likely that the climate was sensitive to CO2.
The El Nino-related warming flagged by GISS for June started to appear in the satellite data.
The horrors of global warming struck again, with... record low temperatures for July recorded in the North-East US.
Sea level rise seems to have paused since back in 2006. This was the source of some contention between Pielke Snr and the warmers at RealClimate a week or so ago. Looks like Pielke was correct.
Reader Comments (7)
"A new paper in Science found that the effect of soot in the air is less than previously thought. The implication is that the IPCC's estimates of how CO2 effects us is overdone."
What does this say about the 1940-75 cooling, which is supposed to have been caused by aerosols masking the Co2 effect, or the way that modelers have claimed to be able to 'hindcast' this effect with confidence?
"What does this say about the 1940-75 cooling, which is supposed to have been caused by aerosols masking the Co2 effect, or the way that modellers have claimed to be able to 'hindcast' this effect with confidence?"
What it says is that they the modellers will adapt a scenario from any set of conditions to fit in with their agenda. It beggars belief that they have even got this far. No matter what those with a “questioning nature” come up with and say "hold on a minute - what about this" they quick as a flash come up with some other cock and bull story to explain it away at the same time as trying to associate you with perpetrators of genocide.
I have to say though that the who carbon issue is not far from every conversation we have now and its heartening to report that 95% of those I discuss this with are sick of it and do not believe it. There are some that worry unnecessarily about it, but what is disgraceful is that I would say 99% of those I discuss this with are completely devoid of any creditable facts. This is the direct result of the press campaign carried out by our illiterate press and the BBC agenda of positively pushing theirs and the Governments line. Miliband junior is a complete wet, and I just wish he had the guts to stand up in public and debate these matters with us.
Here in New Jersey, we are sometimes (not always) wearing long sleeves in July, that's how unseasonably cold it is.
Of course, many people are now saying that weather is not the same a climate.
Slightly O/T but :
Our Ref: 22-06-2009-131902-003 23 July 2009
Dear Mr McIntyre
Request for Information – Information not Held and Refusal to Disclose Information
Your correspondence dated 9 June 2009 has been considered to be a request for information in accordance with the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The Ministry of Defence is permitted to withhold information where exceptions are considered justifiable.
You asked “You stated that CRUTEM3 data that you held was the value added data. Pursuant to the Environmental Information Regulations Act 2004, please provide me with this data in the digital form, together with any documents that you hold describing the procedures under which the data has been quality controlled and where deemed appropriate, adjusted to account for apparent non-climatic influences”.
Your request has been assessed and this letter is to inform you that the Met Office does hold some information covered by the request. We do not hold documents describing the procedures under which the data has been quality controlled or adjusted to account for apparent non-climatic influences.
The information held by the Met Office is withheld in accordance with the following exceptions pursuant to the Environmental Information Regulations Act 2004:
• Section 12 (5) (a) Information likely to prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and any International organisation;
• Section 12 (5) (e) Confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest.
• Section 12 (5) (f) (i) (iii) The supplier was not under legal obligation to supply the information and has not consented to its disclosure.
As the above exceptions are qualified exceptions, a public interest test was undertaken by the Met Office to consider whether there are overriding reasons why disclosure of this information would not be in the public interest. The Met Office has duly considered these reasons in conjunction with the public interest in disclosing the requested information, in particular the benefits of assisting the public having information on environmental information, whereby they would hope to influence decisions from a position of knowledge rather than speculation.
Access to environmental information is particularly important as environmental issues affect
the whole population.
Consideration of Exception Regulation 12 (5) (a)
Much of the requested data comes from individual Scientists and Institutions from several countries. The Met Office received the data information from Professor Jones at the University of East Anglia on the strict understanding by the data providers that this station data must not be publicly released. If any of this information were released, scientists could be reluctant to share information and participate in scientific projects with the public sector organisations based in the UK in future. It would also damage the trust that scientists have in those scientists who happen to be employed in the public sector and could show the Met Office ignored the confidentiality in which the data information was provided.
We considered that if the public have information on environmental matters, they could hope to influence decisions from a position of knowledge rather than speculation. However, the effective conduct of international relations depends upon maintaining trust and confidence between states and international organisations. This relationship of trust allows for the free and frank exchange of information on the understanding that it will be treated in confidence. If the United Kingdom does not respect such confidences, its ability to protect and promote United Kingdom interests through international relations may be hampered. Competitors/ Collaborators could be damaged by the release of information which was given to us in confidence and this will detrimentally affect the ability of the Met Office (UK) to co-operate with meteorological organisations and governments of other countries. This could also provoke a negative reaction from scientist globally if their information which they have requested remains private is disclosed.
Consideration of Exception Regulation 12 (5) (e)
The information is also withheld in accordance with the exception under regulation 12 (5) (e) because the information comprises of Station Data which are commercially sensitive for many of the data sources (particularly European and African Meteorological services) release of any data could adversely affect relationships with other Institutions and individuals, who may plan to use their data for their own commercial interests. Some of this is documented in Hulme, 1996 but this is not a globally comprehensive summary.
The Met Office are not party to information which would allow us to determine which countries and stations data can or cannot be released as records were not kept, or given to the Met Office, therefore we cannot release data where we have no authority to do so. Competitors or collaborators could be damaged by the release of information which was given to us in confidence and could affect their ability to trade.
The Met Office uses the data solely and expressly to create a gridded product that we distribute without condition.
Consideration of Exception Regulation 12 (5) (f) (i) and (iii)
The information is also withheld in accordance with the exception under regulation 12 (5) (f) (i) (iii) as Professor Jones was not legally bound to release the data to the Met Office and has not consented to the disclosure to any other party. As stated above in 12 (5) (a) Some of the information was provided to Professor Jones on the strict understanding by the data providers that this station data must not be publicly released and it cannot be determined which countries or stations data were given in confidence as records were not kept. The Met Office received the data from Professor Jones on the proviso that it would not be released to any other source and to release it without authority would seriously affect the relationship between the United Kingdom and other Countries and Institutions.
I hope this answers your enquiry.
If you are not satisfied with this response or you wish to complain about any aspect of the handling of your request, then you should contact me in the first instance. If informal resolution is not possible and you are still dissatisfied then you may apply for an independent internal review by contacting the Head of Corporate Information, 6th Floor, MOD Main Building, Whitehall, SW1A 2HB (e-mail CIO-XD@mod.uk). Please note that any request for an internal review must be made within 40 working days of the date on which the attempt to reach informal resolution has come to an end.
If you remain dissatisfied following an internal review, you may take your complaint to the Information Commissioner under the provisions of Section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act. Please note that the Information Commissioner will not investigate your case until the MOD internal review process has been completed. Further details of the role and powers of the Information Commissioner can be found on the Commissioner's website, www.ico.gov.uk.
Yours sincerely,
Marion Archer
• Section 12 (5) (a) Information likely to prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and any International organisation...
Hmm-m-m. Would the UN/IPCC be considered "an 'international organisation'?
I wonder if a letter to the IPCC asking if they would be concerned about the release of temperature data would be appropriate.
After today it might be worthwhile asking how they feel about the data having been released. Steve McIntyre now claims to have obtained a copy of said data:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6634
and Anthony Watts has had a few tidbits to add:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/26/deep-cool-the-mole-within-hadley-cru/
For your part, you might want to keep an eye out for any unusual activity around Traitor's Gate, 'cause I'm sure they'll be looking for heads to roll....