Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

Where is all the damn climate data?

By Joe Romm

"Where is all the damn climate data?"

Share:

google plus icon

Oh, here it is.  Never mind….

Tags:

‹ Stabenow Bill Would Make Toothpicks, Chopsticks Eligible for Climate Subsidies

Countdown to Copenhagen: Foundation for a Low Carbon Future ›

24 Responses to Where is all the damn climate data?

  1. dhogaza says:

    It’s not the raw data, though. Much of that raw temp data from met services that CRU uses are written in longhand on sheets of paper. Those data files are transcriptions from paper to computer!

    If you don’t give me those sheets of paper – all of climate science is a fraud!

  2. Andy says:

    Re: Dhogaza: Based on the comments posted to Real Climate’s post introducing the data and code links (check out the first post) I just have this to say.

    Actually it’s still a fraud until those “Hot Earth Fraudsters” set up interviews for me with all of the folks who’ve collected the data (those still living) so I can rake them over the coals. I’ll need to speak to their field assistants too. We’ll have to dispense with data collected by deceased persons. If it isn’t approved by me, then it’s no good. The “Global Warmers” will then need to provide me with a private tutor who can teach me FORTRAN or whatever computer code they used to compile and process the data. Next I need them to reteach me calculus (I sold my book after college for taco money), several years of statistics, physics, and atmospheric sciences. Last of all I require the “Hockey Stickers” to come by for tea and explain every last scientific inquiry they’ve ever made. I’ll be channeling Michael Crieghton while we’re at it.

    When they’re done educating me, they’ll need to do it all over again for each of my “Count of Monkty – Criminy are These Guys For Real” fellows in turn.

  3. #2, Andy: +1, Post of the Day!!
    that’s the most succinct version of the problem I’ve ever seen.

  4. Rick says:

    Where is the data? well to reference Jim Treacher, the science is settled…at the bottom of the dumpster.

    relax it’s just a joke

  5. paulina says:

    Some data still missing…

    I’d like to see Judith Curry’s “data” in support of the claim Andy Revkin appears to be attributing to her (or was he misrepresenting her position?):

    “the email messages….have damaged the public’s trust in the evidence that humans are dangerously warming the planet.”

    What is her basis for claiming that the public’s trust in this evidence has been damaged?

    What is her basis for attributing that alleged damage to the email messages, rather than, for instance, to misleading media on the issue?

    Thanks.

  6. dhogaza says:

    If it isn’t approved by me, then it’s no good. The “Global Warmers” will then need to provide me with a private tutor who can teach me FORTRAN

    Oh, you fall far too short, you need a tutor who can teach you how to write a FORTRAN (and yes, it should be in all caps, as it is an acronym) compiler!

    I’m available … I’m a compiler writer … if you refuse to hire me to teach you how to write a FORTRAN compiler, your acceptance of climate science is a clear sign of religious belief!

  7. Leif says:

    A bit off topic but should bring a smile to the face of most of the readers of this site.
    desmogblog.com/climate-cover-top-selling-media-studies-book-america
    Amazon books.

  8. David Harington says:

    I wonder what inspired the creation of that page, at this time. Would not be the “move along now, nothing to see here” leak of email correspondence at CRU would it?

    No couldn’t be because that would be cynical and self-serving and thee people are saints, on a par with a persecuted Galileo.

  9. Leland Palmer says:

    Oh, by the way-

    If any weather stations are moved, and this move introduces a systematic bias into the data, you may not correct for it.

    Neither canst thou report the data with the bias in it.

    Neither canst thou exclude the data -this is right out, and is an abomination before the Lord, and in fact is a hanging offense.

  10. jyyh says:

    “Provide also all the information on how the instruments used in the inaccurate measurements are constructed and where they’re located, so we can assess their bias, nearby or internal heat leaks and other inaccuracies they have. If some of this info is included only in patents, these should be undone.”

  11. ken levenson says:

    Well put Joe. It’s turtles all the way down!

  12. Bob Murphy says:

    Paulina wrote:

    What is her basis for claiming that the public’s trust in this evidence has been damaged?

    What is her basis for attributing that alleged damage to the email messages, rather than, for instance, to misleading media on the issue?

    You’re right, Judith Curry probably didn’t see a scientific poll on this issue before stating the episode had damaged the public’s trust in the evidence. But do you really doubt that this is the case?

    The vast majority of the public (including me) are not professional climate scientists, and even if we take the time (as I have) to read much of the IPCC report, and contrast it with papers from people like Lindzen and Spencer, we don’t really know for sure if one side is lying and/or crazy, or if it’s truly an open academic question.

    So in that context, to see that the people who have been publicly assuring us the science is settled, no serious scholar doubts this stuff, etc., are actually doing the things contained in those emails, then yes I think that definitely changes the confidence most people have in the assurances of the consensus.

    Of course, even if Curry is right, the public could be wrong in having their faith shaken–that’s Curry’s point too. But if you think this is all a media fabrication, and that there’s “nothing to see here” in those hacked emails, I think you are not in touch with the average person on this issue.

    Just a quick example: This present post, and all of the comments so far, acting as if there has never been an issue of “skeptics” being unable to obtain data. The average person (not a regular reader of Climate Progress) who stumbles on this is going to be perplexed. If all the data has been available this whole time, why do the emails discuss hiding behind privacy agreements and deleting AR4 emails? Why wouldn’t Jones et al. just send McKitrick and the other crazies links to all this publicly available information?

  13. paulina says:

    Bob–

    Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

    I don’t see the issue as one about what the average person *would* or *would not* make of something, given X. I see the issue as one about what they actually *have* made of it, to date, or actually *will* make of it.

    This is not a tedious distinction, but one that goes to the heart of the “significance frame.” To suggest that these emails have already accomplished Y (or will accomplish Y) reinforces the frame that this is a “big deal.”

    People are of course at liberty to reinforce this frame all they want, but when this involves claims that appear to have no basis whatsoever, it seems appropriate, and in the public interest, to apply a bit of skepticism and push back.

    Certainly, if some prominent climate scientists claim that “the public” thinks this is a big deal, that the public thinks these emails undermine evidence, this might muddy the waters a bit. Pretty much a self-fulfilling prophecy, provided the claim gets enough publicity. To add insult to injury, this muddy prophecy is masquerading as a claim about what has already happened. It’s pretty darn misleading, don’t you think?

  14. dhogaza says:

    Actually it’s still a fraud until those “Hot Earth Fraudsters” set up interviews for me with all of the folks who’ve collected the data (those still living) so I can rake them over the coals

    In the “you can’t make this up” department, one poster over there (RC) has demanded that Gavin take a polygraph test, with questions like “have you ever falsified data” etc.

  15. dhogaza says:

    I wonder what inspired the creation of that page, at this time. Would not be the “move along now, nothing to see here” leak of email correspondence at CRU would it?

    No couldn’t be because that would be cynical and self-serving and thee people are saints, on a par with a persecuted Galileo.

    It was something *far* more nefarious, a reader suggesting that a single resource pointing towards online data would be a useful resource.

    Gavin said “good idea!”.

    It’s all been available via google for ages but a single page at RC is more convenient.

    BTW, e-mail me – I have a xmas special coming up on tinfoil hats.

  16. dhogaza says:

    Why wouldn’t Jones et al. just send McKitrick and the other crazies links to all this publicly available information?

    McI and McK were surely aware of the GHCN data source (in which you’ll find something like 95% to 98% of the raw data used by CRU).

    McI chose to make a huge issue out of the remaining bits because saying “CRU is hiding its data” sounds far more damning than “only 95% of the data is available!”.

    Think about it. Add to this public statements accusing CRU of fraud, etc and then ask yourself if you’re *really* surprised that Jones hates McI. And ask yourself, why shouldn’t Jones hate someone who’s spent years slandering him, his colleagues, and his institution.

    If I were to spend ten years trying to convince people that you’re beating your wife, including letters to your employer, etc, how would you feel about me?

    For example, at one point McI and his crew generated 58 FOI requests in six days – including over a weekend. That’s nothing but harassment (and under UK law is itself sufficient to dismiss them, apparently).

  17. MarkB says:

    Bob Murphy,

    To put Lindzen into perspective (note that Spencer is perhaps his harshest critic on his recent paper)…

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Working-out-climate-sensitivity.html

    98-99% of climate data is publicly available, including all of GISS (NASA) surface temperature data and methods. See the links on this post for examples. Contrarians have made a big deal of the remaining 1-2% that isn’t, dishonestly insinuating it applies to most of climate science.

    I personally think the average person in the general public is turned off by the idea that political hacks are perusing through stolen emails of scientists looking for dirt and parsing words. Most were turned off by Sarah Palin’s email account being hacked into. But that’s politics. It’s a whole new level when doing it to scientists. It probably doesn’t play well beyond the paranoid folks worried about the “government taxing me to death with cap and tax”. It’s fuel for that crowd.

  18. MarkB says:

    Bob Murphy,

    I just took a look at your blog. Not impressive. Lots of gleeful obsession over selective quotes from emails and adding your own spin (and you seemed so polite here…). This is what I think the general public is largely turned off by.

  19. Gracco says:

    Re dhogaza says:
    November 29, 2009 at 8:31 pm

    “It’s not the raw data, though. Much of that raw temp data from met services that CRU uses are written in longhand on sheets of paper. Those data files are transcriptions from paper to computer!”

    dhogaza, the problem here appears to be that this is the very data that’s been lost/destroyed. All that’s available now is the reworked data. There is nothing available to show what assumptions were applied to the raw data.

  20. dhogaza says:

    dhogaza, the problem here appears to be that this is the very data that’s been lost/destroyed.

    No, CRU has not kept their digitized *copies* of the records kept by the individual national met services.

    You do realize that all they ever had were *copies*, right? Thus my snarky comment about wanting the actual pieces of paper.

    CRU wasn’t formed to act as an international repository of raw data, they get *copies* and process it.

  21. Gracco says:

    “CRU wasn’t formed to act as an international repository of raw data, they get *copies* and process it.”

    Exactly. However good science would dictate that the original data sets, *copies*, are kept along with what assumptions were made to arrive at the *processed* data.

  22. dhogaza says:

    Exactly. However good science would dictate that the original data sets, *copies*, are kept along with what assumptions were made to arrive at the *processed* data.

    Why? Other than “You say so”?

  23. Gracco says:

    Here I’ll take a leaf out of CRU’s book. Just trust me. Good science?