Climate change data dumped

[Jackpine Radical]

Dammit, this bothers me. First, I don't really doubt global warming; the evidence is in front of our noses. But I also have a background as a published researcher (in another field) and have some idea how the game should be played. Data destruction of this sort isn't part of the game.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

[Hoopla Phil]

1. It makes peer review impossible and brings into question the entire work. N/T

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Yes, exactly.

I feel kinda like I did when I found out that Gregor Mendel faked his data on the pea plants.

[phasma ex machina]

22. +1 It makes a mockery out of the whole endeavor. nt

[Hekate]

3. This is the downside to the so-called "paperless" office: people decide to eliminate documents...

... whether it makes sense or not.

Whee -- look at how modern and up-to-date we are, everything is stored inside this computer which can only be destroyed by magnets, flood, fire, technological obsolescence.... :eyes:

Good luck to other researchers trying to reconstruct that data.

Hekate

[Jackpine Radical]

5. They could have at least kept electronic copies of the original data.

The wipe was apparently deliberate.

Shit, I had boxes of computer cards and printouts with my PhD thesis data on them for years.

[Hekate]

9. I know, I know. It's a mindset. I knew a woman who dumped files she thought were old...

... from the file cabinets where I used to work. There was actually a policy for how long to keep stuff before throwing it out, but she liked to jump the gun in the name of tidiness and efficiency.

I have multiple copies of my PhD dissertation too. There's more than one paper copy. There are diskettes.

But here's the kicker: I wrote it on a Mac G3, and now have an iMac OS 10.5. Hubby did the transfer of all my old files, going back to my first computer, a Mac LC. The new system wouldn't open the dissertation folders and implied there's no "there" there. Hubby fixed that, but the formatting I labored so hard on is kaput, so I wouldn't want to try printing it out again. Other older files are gobbledegook or show up as some weird text thing.

I sometimes think that instead of hanging around here so much I should spend time printing things out before they are gone for good. I tend to want to archive things, and have now learned that the computer is not a good place to do that.

As for the deliberate nature of the wipe ... >sigh< ... I remember when that kind of thing was called sabotage.

Hekate

[me b zola]

4. This is *one* team of scientists

...but thousands others who have their findings for everyone to see.

Let me ask you this. If there was *one* study--out of many-- that lost data similar to the climate change scientists that was used to prove that the US health care system is broken and in dire need of reform , would you now question the need for health care reform?

[Jackpine Radical]

6. Yes, I know. I don't think I implied that the whole GW edifice is crashing.

But it's still very bad form.

[tex-wyo-dem]

17. Yeah, bad form is a good way to put it...

Seems crazy to me that such important data wouldn't be archived much more carefully. In any case, this certainly does not put into question the overall theories as these have been supported by hundereds of studies not directly relying on the data in question.

Still, on the surface, this looks bad.

As a side note: I wonder if the raw data could be reconstructed from the adjusted data?

[Jackpine Radical]

26. "I wonder if the raw data could be reconstructed from the adjusted data?"

Well, that's a problem. Would you rust the reconstruction? I mean, face it, scientific data has been jiggered in the past. That's the problem with destroying your raw data in a high-stakes study.

[RufusTFirefly]

14. Can you say ACORN?

This smells like an orchestrated effort to completely discredit an important organization.

I figured intelligence and cooler heads would prevail in the bogus case against ACORN. Of course, I was wrong.

I'm probably wrong again.

[Hannah Bell]

25. except e. anglia is reportedly a hub.

[Jackpine Radical]

7. Hah! This thread is underwater.

<0 recs. It's kinda pathetic when you can't raise a legitimate issue on a liberal board without getting dumped on. We're supposed to be the ones who value truth, who go about the world with our eyes open.

[Hekate]

10. That's just wrong. I gave you a Rec so now you show +1. nt

[notesdev]

12. They don't want to know

I've been getting serially jumped for pointing out all the inconvenient truths. You get an avalanche of invective as the reward for thinking independently and checking the facts out for yourself.

[phasma ex machina]

23. Thank your lucky stars that you dodged the RW label. (So far.) nt

[pscot]

8. Disappointing and stupid

Especially in so far as it provides an opening for the denialists. We'll never hear the end of this one.

[gristy]

11. There was a very good thread on this over the weekend

The view that the alleged "destruction" of data casts asparagus on global warming was pretty much debunked IMO. Maybe someone can post a link to it.

[RufusTFirefly]

13. Hacked climate emails called a "smear campaign"

Hacked climate emails called a "smear campaign"

Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:54pm EST

by Stacy Feldman, SolveClimate solveclimate.com/

(SolveClimate) Three leading scientists who on Tuesday released a report documenting the accelerating pace of climate change said the scandal that erupted last week over hacked emails from climate scientists is nothing more than a "smear campaign" aimed at sabotaging December climate talks in Copenhagen.

"We're facing an effort by special interests who are trying to confuse the public," said Richard Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and a lead author of the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

snip...

In a statement released on Tuesday, three of the UK's leading science organizations—the Met Office, the Natural Environment Research Council and the Royal Society—issued an unusually strong statement in advance of Copenhagen. They wrote:

The scientific evidence which underpins calls for action at Copenhagen is very strong. Without co-ordinated international action on greenhouse gas emissions, the impacts on climate and civilization could be severe.

Reuters

[Swamp Rat]

15. ARGH!!! .... Raw temperature data...

the very data I NEED to do my research!!! :mad:

[Ichingcarpenter]

16. This is a bullshit story from lapfog_1

I was in charge of storing much of the "raw climate data" for NASA for many, many years.

It's a lot more data than some weather station temperature data. A *LOT* more. Even the historical data.

I worked with some people from NASA's DAO (Data Acquisition Office), which, in turn, worked for a program called EOSDIS (Earth Observation System, Distributed Information System, part of MTPE or Mission to Planet Earth). That program not only collected and stored all of the "raw data" plus many "data products" (that is, remote sensing data has to be corrected for instrument variation and other factors). Also, complex products (data combined from different instruments combined together to form a single data product... like ocean temperature at a particular time and location) were stored. Most climate modelers do not want the raw uncorrected data, they want the most accurate data, which would be one of the complex products.

EOSDIS had multiple repository sites at Universities around the nation, researchers could get their own copies from any given site.

EOSDIS has been renamed since I left NASA 10 years ago... here is their new homepage:

http://esdis.eosdis.nasa.gov /

I believe anyone can go get copies of any of the data products, you only need a REALLY good internet connection (45 Mbits/sec would be a minimum) and a few hundred GBs of empty disk space.

But to claim that only 1 university has the "raw data" (uncorrected for instrument calibration) and they "lost" it is simply bogus.


Also another thread
This is a last ditch coordinated attack in advance of

Copenhagen, to discredit climate change scientists and the data behind it.

It's bullshit and a number of posters here that are either completely misled or intentionally deceitful should not be here to spread their misinformation.

I worked for NASA for 10 years (1989 to 1999). My title was Chief Scientist. My job was Chief Architect for Data Storage Systems. I was building multi-petabyte storage systems back when a petabyte actually was very impressive.

I worked with a group from NASA Goddard called the DAO (Data Acquisition Office). They were the primary group in NASA to retrieve Earth Observation data from all sources (remote sensing satellites, earth weather station, ocean buoys, military and cargo ships, etc). I stored their data for them. They gave it to the EOSDIS program at NASA Goddard, where it was distributed to universities around the world. There was a blue ribbon panel commissioned to review EOSDIS, I was selected by my division chief to be the Storage Review Manager. I believe that they implemented most, if not all, of my recommendations.

I have numerous published papers in peer reviewed journals and 3 patents in the area of Data Storage. I also chaired IEEE meetings and ACM meetings on storage related topics. I was also the NASA representative to the IEEE standards committee on hierarchical storage standards.

This story is bullshit.

Raw data products are not interesting to anyone in climate science. They haven't been corrected for instrument variance nor combined with other instrument or platform data to form more accurate products. The climate modelers are only interested in the complex products, not the raw data (once they have been assured of the accuracy of the complex products). Some university in GB is NOT the authoritative source for any of the raw data that I collected and stored for the DAO. They *might* have been one of the repositories for certain products from EOSDIS. But they were never the only location where any of the data (raw, processed, etc) was stored.

[Hekate]

20. Very interesting. Thank you.

Are you still in Santa Maria? (that is if iirc) Working at Vandenberg maybe? You certainly seem to have the background for it.

Hekate

[Ichingcarpenter]

21. I live in Northern Europe now

I didn't write that Lap did
and I know he did for a fact work
where he said he worked.

Its corporate astroturfing we are seeing right before the conference.


I will be at the conference in Kopenhagen and will twitt
from there.

[Hekate]

24. I'm sure that will be VERY interesting. Post here when you can (I don't tweet). nt

[AngryAmish]

27. What was their raw data?

This would be important if this was the only source of the historical data, say the noontime temperature in Hong Kong on June 8m 1872. Great Britain would have the best info on that because they were a world empire for hundreds of years.

This data needs to be adjusted since a temp at noon last June 8 in Hong Kong would be a lot different animal. The weather station may have moved from inland to the new airport that is on an island, Fahrenheit changed to Celsius etc. Even weather stations that did not change may have moved to an urban area with subsequent rise in temperatures (urban areas are hotter because of all the concrete).

But what the raw data was and what the adjustment was is important.

Has this historical data been retained? 'Cause it seems from what I have read it was not.

THis is important and just saying "trust us" is not good enough.

[Jackpine Radical]

29. Yes, I think the foundation needs to be preserved.

There are many reasons why you might want to refer to the raw data: To test another model, to refute claims of malfeasance of one sort or another, etc.

[robdogbucky]

18. Wait a minute

Jackpine, you mean you started a thread with the exact same title that has gathered flames and 224 replies on Sunday over on the LBN page? I know your writings here, and I greatly respect you for your contributions on DU over the last few years.

I thought when one starts a new thread, a page comes on to remind not to duplicate and lists several recent threads. I would think this occurred, especially since the title is exactly the same over on LBN.

Some folks feigning innocence on here are not so innocent methinks. Of course some folks don't answer direct questions after starting threads or after raising an issue or using innuendo just for flamebait. We all know that and I don't think that you would be up to that. I do strongly suspect the paid minions are hereabouts with their marching orders. It is a sign of desperation that such a small thing as this appears to be, is magnified.

It was clearly described by some of the participating peer review members as an effort to now discredit the scientists, many of whom have done yoeman's work on this topic for years, now that the political forces are addressing it. The forces within the last administration continuously suppressed/and or changed global warming information that was to be published through our government, no doubt on orders from the Chamber and their cohorts. Follow the money.

Sad but true. Look for similar strategies of tension and ongoing misinformation in the upcoming months for the next hot button issues like abortion and gun control. And of course this week we still have HCR and the troop buildup announcement/rationale.




Just my dos centavos

robdogbucky

[certainot]

19. dos bueno centavos

[Jackpine Radical]

28. I didn't see the thread elsewhere.

Judging from the comments, a lot of others didn't either. The title is the same because I took it from the article. I posted it because it was from a legit source (the Times), and seemed to point out a real problem. I'm neither a GW denier nor an atmospheric scientist, and posted this for several reasons, one of which was to gather the informed responses of others. The link was sent to me by someone who IS a denier. And I think that warning page is specific to the forum you're posting in, so by posting in GD I might not have seen the LBN headlines.

[robdogbucky]

31. Fair enough

You're in Wisconsin? I was born and raised in Madtown, are you there now? I live and learn in California these days.

Have you had time to read that other massive thread with identical title on LBN yet?

I would be interested in your observations after doing so.

I saw a fraction of a program on HBO last night on global warming, I think it was "Too hot to handle," but can't be sure.

It was late and because it had just started I decided to record it for later viewing. It appeared to have lots of UW scientists contributing, which is no surprise if you follow this issue. Have you seen this program? I am sure it will be in the loop on HBO for a while.

I would be interested to know your area of expertise and your reaction to the program if you get a chance to see it.

Always glad to discuss issues with a sane someone located in Cheeseland.


robdogbucky

[Jackpine Radical]

32. I didn't look up the other thread, and I didn't see the HBO show.

I've just been using DU as an incidental distraction & diversion while working on a massive report-writing bout. I have a friend I used to work with who is a total wingnut and denier. He's forever sending me emails about record cold spells & the like. I wrote this in response to one of his emails: http://jackpineneedles.blogspot.com/2009/07/it-happened-again.html . Most of the "news" things he sends are from the Moonie Times and the Telegraph and places like that. He sent me the Times link that I posted here, which I posted for reasons I already mentioned. I certainly don't see this as a major scientific threat to GW theory, but it is something of a PR problem.

I spent quite a few years in Madison, got BS, MS & PhD degrees there. I'm a psychologist, currently forensic & clinical, but with an academic past.

[Viking12]

30. Data dumps certainly are part of the game.

From the article:
"the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue."

No one would have been able to foresee the necessity of this data 25 years ago. At some point, seemingly useless data just takes up space and there is usually limited storage. This was especially true 25 years ago before we had the electronic storage capacity we do now. Besides there are other repositories of the raw data:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/