News Science vs. Politics: Tipping Points in Climate Change Communication

[mheslep]

Let's imagine for a second that the CRU did have the data and agreed to release it. What then? It's not like anything new would arise from the skeptic position no new papers showing why the CRU method is wrong that haven't already been written. ...

Absent the raw station data from CRU, how do you know that nothing new would arise?

 

[Proton Soup]

Can we try to keep the context clear?

My remarks you have quoted are specifically addressed to the point of the amount of flying time clocked up by Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri. And I maintain, none of that makes any difference to the science. You have removed the remark from it's context here, and some people might thing it is now a remark about all the policitical brouhaha surround climate science generally. It is not.

We probably both agree that ideally the work of science in discovering answers to scientific questions should proceed without politically driven influence.

We agree, I suspect, that there IS in fact an influence of politics on this work; and that this is a bad thing. We might disagree on the nature and scope of that impact.

Cheers -- sylas

i don't think it's out of context at all. you imply that regardless of all the shenanigans displayed by Gore, Pachauri, et al. that the "science" they are triumphing is untainted.

 

[sylas]

For clarity, some of the original raw station data has apparently been lost or destroyed as Evo's link states. The information supposedly derivative of that raw data is what has been made available.

For more clarity --- NO.

The original raw data still exists and is maintained by the bodies that own it, and allowed the CRU to have use of it in their research. The CRU has merged all the raw data that was available to it into a single combined database, which has always existed and is being used all the time to get the final processed data products like CRUTEM.
The processing that was involved in the merge of raw data to a database is comparatively minor; for example it involves combining any duplicated records for a single station. Comments indicate that some of the original records may have been discarded by the CRU sometime after being merged into the combined database of underlying climate data.

The combined database cannot be released, because it contains all of that proprietary station data subject to binding non-disclosure arrangements, merged with all the data from other more open data providers. There is an ongoing work in progress to have this whole combined underlying record made available, but that requires permission from all the owners of the data that appears in the merged database.

You can think of it as a three step process.

Lots and lots of raw data --> combined database of merged raw data --> CRUTEM​

The vast majority of the raw data is available. You get it from the holders of that raw data. I don't know that the CRU itself puts up any of it on its own website; that kind of duplication achieves little. You should get the raw data from the owners and maintainers of the raw data, and about 95% of what has been merged is easily available.

The CRU does not release its combined database of merged raw data. It would be a handy thing to have, not so much for auditing, but for use by scientists in other independent calculations of all kinds of things. However, because there is a small amount of data in that merged database that is subject to non-disclosure, you can't simply put up the database for release.

The final processed CRUTEM product is released, of course, and always has been. Other research groups have replicated the entire process as an independent calculation entirely, and obtained the same result to well within measurement errors. This replication is not an audit; but a normal independent repeat as normally done in science to check someone else's results. Such replication takes nothing at all from the CRU, but gets their own data and uses their own calculations to obtain a final result that can be compared with CRUTEM.

Summary:

• It really is the original raw data that is mostly available, not only the processed result. What is available is sufficient for replication in the normal scientific sense of the word.
• The original raw data still exists. It is all held by the appropriate bodies which made it available to the CRU. Scientific replication means taking nothing from the CRU, but doing an independent collection and processing of data.
• The CRU also has a merged database of underlying climate data, which cannot be released because it includes proprietary information that the CRU does not own.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Sorry!]

If you want to see exactly what sylas is talking about you could of course always head on over to CRUs ftp.

 

[Evo]

No longer available from THEM. That is very different. I don't think that any reasonable person thinks that CRU has the ability to destroy raw data held by NASA, NOAA, or any of the other international sources of their data-sets. CRU may no longer have THEIR copies of the huge data-sets that they obtained from other organizations, but that doesn't mean that the organizations that compiled those data-sets have destroyed them.

Let me post the collection of links that you deleted before (with NO link to the hosting organization) and everyone here will see that in fact the raw data, processed data, and processing code actually exists. The "destruction" of data is the biggest red herring ever in this particular subject. PF gets spidered and trawled over and over again every day, and subject to the storage capacity of the search engines, NOTHING is truly "lost" or deleted so that it cannot be recovered. I have made extensive used of NASA's NED web-site, CalTech's web resources, HyperLEDA, SDSS, and many other astronomical resources in the course of research. If I have limited space (I do) and deleted source data from my drives after populating spreadsheets, databases, etc, (I did), that in no way implies that the source data is "destroyed" or no longer available. I can't destroy that raw data, nor could CRU destroy the raw data that they relied on.

Last time. There is only similar data from GISS, etc... out of all of that data, the specific data that the CRU scientists picked out then changed is what is missing. Are you and sorry trying to troll?

 

[Sorry!]

For anyone interested to read the actually documentation on why CRU cannot release their raw data:

http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/ois/Operational_Information/Publications/Congress/Cg_XII/res40_en.html

This is the reason.

 

[DanP]

I guess, it just gets annoying when people on here are complaining about how political AGW supporters are yet their only information comes from media sources. (Which is very clearly twisting the situation)

Why is that "twisting" the situation ? This is all political to the bone, I expect everyone involved will twist and use any leverage possible.

Besides, a lot of controversial info seem to come from CRU itself, through the e-mail hack. That is not "media".

 

[Sorry!]

Why is that "twisting" the situation ? This is all political to the bone, I expect everyone involved will twist and use any leverage possible.

Besides, a lot of controversial info seem to come from CRU itself, through the e-mail hack. That is not "media".

Not really. Most controversy from the e-mails occurred due to understanding the language being used. The continued controversy comes from certain media sources playing on these misunderstandings. As well if you do not think that the released e-mails over the internet is a media source than I do not know what else to say to you.

 

[Evo]

Now you are charging CRU scientists with cherry-picking data? Let me play PF-rule advocate here and suggest that you come up with some unbiased peer-reviewed references for that charge. That's not nice.

They have admitted it. How would a statement they made be peer reviewed? And we don't require peer review anyway.

Do you understand which data is being discussed?

 

[sylas]

i don't think it's out of context at all. you imply that regardless of all the shenanigans displayed by Gore, Pachauri, et al. that the "science" they are triumphing is untainted.

And that is precisely correct.

The shenanigans or otherwise of people who are publicizing science has nothing whatever to do with the quality of the science itself. The IPCC does not do research; it is a report on the state of science done by others.

I don't actually think the shenanigans are anything of the kind, but leave that aside. Certainly I think Gore in particular could do more to reduce his personal carbon footprint, but I don't think that is "shenanigans". It is a personal inconsistency. But this is all so clearly ad hominem for a comment on the science itself that we can presume they are baby eaters, if you like.

Gore has no input at all into the science, none. He is exclusively a popularizer.

Pachauri has almost no input into the science; when he became chair of IPCC he replaced a climate scientist as the previous chair, which some people consider to be a cause for concern. He himself is not a climate scientist, and was widely perceived as being more "industry friendly". His own PhD is in "Industrial Engineering and Economics", and he has a long history of direct industry involvement. Unlike the previous chair he has done no research at all into the science of climate, and has no mention or citations or references whatsoever in the WG1 report.

His alleged personal failings is a classic ad hominem fallacy.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[DanP]

Not really. Most controversy from the e-mails occurred due to understanding the language being used.

What, where those e-mails written in some sort of mystical secret society language and only those knowing the secret handshake can understand them ?

As well if you do not think that the released e-mails over the internet is a media source than I do not know what else to say to you.

It is a big difference. The source of that stolen data is CRU itself. The fact that it was stolen doesn't change it's origins.

 

[Proton Soup]

And that is precisely correct.

The shenanigans or otherwise of people who are publicizing science has nothing whatever to do with the quality of the science itself. The IPCC does not do research; it is a report on the state of science done by others.

I don't actually think the shenanigans are anything of the kind, but leave that aside. Certainly I think Gore in particular could do more to reduce his personal carbon footprint, but I don't think that is "shenanigans". It is a personal inconsistency. But this is all so clearly ad hominem for a comment on the science itself that we can presume they are baby eaters, if you like.

Gore has no input at all into the science, none. He is exclusively a popularizer.

Pachauri has almost no input into the science; when he became chair of IPCC he replaced a climate scientist as the previous chair, which some people consider to be a cause for concern. He himself is not a climate scientist, and was widely perceived as being more "industry friendly". His own PhD is in "Industrial Engineering and Economics", and he has a long history of direct industry involvement. Unlike the previous chair he has done no research at all into the science of climate, and has no mention or citations or references whatsoever in the WG1 report.

His alleged personal failings is a classic ad hominem fallacy.

Cheers -- sylas

so you think all this politicization doesn't influence who gets funding and who does not?

 

[mheslep]

Because the data has always been available.

Uh, where?

The station list has been posted for CRU I believe they use currently over 3000 stations and the list supplied gives all the stations used. (I think its something like 4000 stations). The CRU didn't 'get' their own information, they used other raw information and adjusted it (properly I might add). If you look at the first Station Jan Mayen you can look up the history of the station. It was moved I believe 4 times. So should all the raw data collected from this station be equally used? Of course not.

I didn't ask how or comment on how it should be used, I asked specifically for the raw temperature data.

You can also get the data from Jay Mayen. Knock yourself out?

You seem to be implying the temperature data since its founding in 1921 is somehow archived on this artic island? You know this how?

 

[Evo]

Evo the raw data is not CRUs data. So what this means (what turbo is saying to you) is that even if they DID delete ALL their raw data it's not gone. You can still go and get it for yourself.


IT'S THE SAME DATA.

From CRU's website

We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.

This is ridiculous, if you know what this is about then you know it is the data Roger Pielke requested and was denied. Odd that the authors of that paper (and you know which paper that is, right?) say the data is gone but you, turbo and sylas claim to have it. Perhaps you should send it to them, they need it.

And turbo, after I nominated you for the Community Spirit award for your Hot Stuff thread. tsk

 

[Sorry!]

You seem to be implying the temperature data since its founding in 1921 is somehow archived on this artic island? You know this how?

Well first of all I am implying that the data is still available. How do I know this? Well because I have seen the data for this location of course. Go look it up like I said instead of doubting me. And no I'm not going to post links to any data on here because they are not to 'CRUs raw data' and no-one cares to look at them.

 

[D H]

Not really. Most controversy from the e-mails occurred due to understanding the language being used.

I agree wholeheartedly.

I also had to capture your post before you "fixed" it.

 

[turbo]

Uh, where?

I can't show you where the data is available because there is a mentor here with an agenda that doesn't want me to post the links, unless I want to be banned. The data is there. The source data was never compiled by CRU, nor was it distributed by them. They are modelers, using data-sets compiled by others. A distinction that is apparently really convenient for some people to "overlook". I am NOT an AGW cheerleader, but I really detest the politicization of the issue and the mud-slinging against climate scientists who are trying to do their jobs. They might be good at it, or bad at it, or somewhere in between, but to portray them as crooks and frauds is pretty crass.

 

[Evo]

Well first of all I am implying that the data is still available. How do I know this? Well because I have seen the data for this location of course. Go look it up like I said instead of doubting me. And no I'm not going to post links to any data on here because they are not to 'CRUs raw data' and no-one cares to look at them.

Enough, you are not referring to the specific data that is being discussed. You are derailing the thread and it's going to stop now. We know there are tons of similar data, that's not the issue.

turbo, same goes for you, you're not addressing the specific requested data. Either neither of you understand or are intentionally trying to derail the thread.

 

[mheslep]

...

Pachauri has almost no input into the science; when he became chair of IPCC he replaced a climate scientist as the previous chair, which some people consider to be a cause for concern. He himself is not a climate scientist, and was widely perceived as being more "industry friendly". His own PhD is in "Industrial Engineering and Economics", and he has a long history of direct industry involvement. Unlike the previous chair he has done no research at all into the science of climate, and has no mention or citations or references whatsoever in the WG1 report.

His alleged personal failings is a classic ad hominem fallacy.

Cheers -- sylas

No, its hardly classic in this case. Ad hominem applies when a logical, supported by observation hypothesis is put forward, then instead of attacking the hypothesis on its merits the author is attacked. Here, on the subject of process, we have no scientific hypothesis from Pachauri, we have instead 'Pachauri says' the process is https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2467973&postcount=280", i.e. his opinion, in which case his personal credibility is entirely relevant.

 

[DanP]

Are you trying to say that raw data from Jan Mayen is not data that is being discussed?

It is not. It is a subset.

 

[mheslep]

Are you trying to say that raw data from Jan Mayen is not data that is being discussed?

from the file crustnsused.txt (CRU STATIONS USED):Gives ID number, position in the world the name of the station and the country. Jan Mayen data is very much part of the data being discussed here.

Yes everybody knows there's a meteorology station there. Where is the temperature data? I.e., May 15, 1965, 10:00 AM, 52 degs C.

 

[Evo]

Are you trying to say that raw data from Jan Mayen is not data that is being discussed?

from the file crustnsused.txt (CRU STATIONS USED):


Gives ID number, position in the world the name of the station and the country. Jan Mayen data is very much part of the data being discussed here.

What's the report we're discussing? Please provide the link.

 

[turbo]

turbo, same goes for you, you're not addressing the specific requested data. Either neither of you understand or are intentionally trying to derail the thread.

What data do you want? Will you ban me for trying my best to provide it from publicly-available sources? If CRU deleted the raw data in the 1980s after incorporating it into their models, that is understandable. These days, you can get a terabyte of storage for about $100 or so. 30 years ago, that was not possible - you'd need a budget that would scare a defense department. I have been trying to inject some balance into this thread regarding science vs politics, and have been disappointed again and again.

 

[Sorry!]

Yes everybody knows there's a meteorology station there. Where is the temperature data? I.e., May 15, 1965, 10:00 AM, 52 degs C.

Well the average temperature for the month of May 1965 was -2.0 Celcius?

 

[mheslep]

For anyone interested to read the actually documentation on why CRU cannot release their raw data:

http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/ois/Operational_Information/Publications/Congress/Cg_XII/res40_en.html

This is the reason.

What, this?

Adopts the following policy on the international exchange of meteorological and related data and products:
As a fundamental principle of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), and in consonance with the expanding requirements for its scientific and technical expertise, WMO commits itself to broadening and enhancing the free and unrestricted(1) international exchange of meteorological and related data and products;

Seriously, what portion of CRU temperature data is restricted by copyright?

 

[Evo]

What data do you want? Will you ban me for trying my best to provide it from publicly-available sources? If CRU deleted the raw data in the 1980s after incorporating it into their models, that is understandable. These days, you can get a terabyte of storage for about $100 or so. 30 years ago, that was not possible - you'd need a budget that would scare a defense department. I have been trying to inject some balance into this thread regarding science vs politics, and have been disappointed again and again.

If you know the specific data that was requested, then name that report. Post the link.

 

[Evo]

Sorry, I'm waiting for the answer. Link to the report please.

I'll even give you another ten minutes to come up with it.

 

[Sorry!]

Sorry, I'm waiting for the answer. Link to the report please.

It's not a report its data. It's already been posted, but this just goes back to when I said that the data being posted isn't being looked over.

@Your threat, please. Do whatever you want Evo.

 

[Evo]

It's not a report its data. It's already been posted, but this just goes back to when I said that the data being posted isn't being looked over.

@Your threat, please. Do whatever you want Evo.

That's what I thought. You have no idea what report the CRU claims they no longer have the data on.

 

[Sorry!]

Are you done deleting the post? Interesting to note that all the posts which reference directly to the data which is very much part of the discussion have been deleted. Also interesting to note that the post I made which clarifies your misrepresentation of the CRU statement has been deleted, as well as the post I made to point out that you had deleted it... Why?