Was there any data that could only be found at the CRU?

Question

Many people talk about the CRU destroying/hiding data, keeping it out of the hands of deniers, thus depriving them of an opportunity to refute the CRU's conclusions, but isn't that whole view mad? Did the CRU produce any original data, or did they get all of it from other sources, sources that any climate scientist or organization would have access to the same data as the CRU?

Answer 1

Like all other scientific groups analyzing global temperature data (NASA GISS, NOAA, etc.), CRU gets their raw data from the Global Historical Climate Network. It can be found here:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#Climate_data_raw



Back in the '80s before global warming was considered a major issue, CRU destroyed large tapes of this data because they took up a lot of space, and because the raw data is rather useless once it's been analyzed. It's the processed data that's useful.



But as you note, the raw temperature data is still available from the Global Historical Climate Network. The "they destroyed the raw data" argument is nothing but a red herring, as are most denier arguments.



*edit* Ottawa Mike manages to criticize me while completely failing to answer the question, and thus completely missing the point. CRU didn't throw out anything that was not readily obtainable elsewhere. To paraphrase Star Wars, "the denial is strong in this one."



*edit 2* here is the paper describing the data analysis methods employed by CRU requested by Poptech.

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/HadCRUT3_accepted.pdf



It took me literally 5 seconds to find on their website.

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/



It was originally published in the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres in 2006.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006.../2005JD006548.shtml

Answer 2

● Was there any data that could only be found at the CRU?



No, the CRU doesn’t produce original data per-se, the data it uses come from other sources such as the UK’s Met Office, NASA, British Antarctic Survey, various militaries, airports, the NOAA, European Space Agency, universities etc





● Many people talk about the CRU destroying/hiding data,



The data that were destroyed were duplicate copies. With advances in computing, data were transferred onto hard-drives and the old magnetic computer tapes were destroyed. Paper duplicates were also destroyed. The claim that original data were destroyed is nonsense, the original data alleged to have been destroyed are safe and well in the Met Office Archives with copies held by numerous organisations.





● keeping it out of the hands of deniers, thus depriving them of an opportunity to refute the CRU's conclusions



There is some truth to this. The CRU have responded very slowly to some requests for information. UK laws provide for anyone to request data and information, this provision is established under the Freedom of Information Act (FIA).



The CRU receives many requests under the FIA and most are dealt with promptly. There are some skeptics and deniers who abuse the system and inundate the CRU with requests for all manner of obscure and abstract bits of information.



Stephen McIntyre for example sends an average of two requests per day. As a consequence requests from certain people were given a low priority and several extraneous and infantile requests were ignored.





● Did the CRU produce any original data,



Like any organisation the CRU produces it’s own data, these are shared with climate research organisations around the world. Much of it is publicly available online, the Met Office (of which the CRU is a part) is currently making millions of files and documents available online but with over 350 years worth of records this is a long process.





● or did they get all of it from other sources



The data that were alleged to have been destroyed relate to the global temperature record, in this respect the data come from other sources.





● sources that any climate scientist or organization would have access to the same data as the CRU?



As a climate scientist myself I have access to the CRU data, we also maintain a global temperature record and have complete copies of the data that were allegedly destroyed.

Answer 3

Simple answer is no, one example of real (raw) temperature data would be that collected in Australia by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology it is their data they give a copy of this to CRU as do many other Met service from around the world each of these agencies have the real RAW data, this has been explained to deniers many times. But it messes with deniers ideas of world conspiracies so they ignore it, if they really wanted raw data it has always been available they just aren't trying to get it as this is not about actually getting the data but trying to discredit the science.



Poptech: Sorry not even slightly desperate, as several have said the data is available and other groups have processed the data independently like GISS and NOAA with much the same results, deniers are clutching at straws on this one and quoting roger pielke jr's blog is not really evidence, as his views on climate change hardly make him a reliable source.



The Advocate of the Devil:

"That's interesting. So his methods cannot be found anymore? Wouldn't those have been published in a peer review journal?"



Yes something like this http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v322/n6078/pdf/322430a0.pdf

His original paper on the subject to this his most recent http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/jones.html

Answer 4

Here is what is missing and as PotTech said it is crucial.



Scientific process.



Even my grade school children have learned this much. (3rd and 5th grade preteen)

1. You must document your procedure.

2. You must document your process.

3. You must document the data used and the data gathered along with data generated.

4. You must document your results and conclusions and support those conclusions with your data.



Missing any one of these 4 elements and you do NOT get a passing grade.



CRU missed elements 1, 2, and 3 along with elements of #4.



These are the annual requirements for grade school children grades 3 - 5 in Michigan. You'd think that "professional" and "trained" scientists would understand at least that much.





Edit: were elements 1, 2, and 3 along with parts of 4 in peer reveiwed journals?



Ah, no! Said data processes and proceedures are generally exhaustively laid out for larger programs and projects such as this. An entire journal publication would not be large enough to contain the programming code much less documentaiton for whch alogrythms were used and why use A over B how various anomalies in data were dealt with etc. When they say they did not have room to store there is some reason for that. In a true scientific endeavor, a great volume of data and proceedural informaiton along with programs formulae calcultations tables etc would fill many book shelves. These "peer reviewed journals" are monthly or quarterly periodicals only. Little to no true scientific value there.

Answer 5

The raw data and methods as assembled by Phil Jones and CRU is not available. This prevents reproduction of the CRU temperature series and thus makes their temperature series unverifiable and thus unusable. It is inexcusable for any scientists to delete the raw data series they compiled. Saying that the original sources for most of the data from which they compiled their original series is still available with no procedure available to assemble the data exactly how Phil Jones and CRU did is a desperate attempt at obfuscation.



Antarc: Please provide the location where I can obtain the procedure to recreate the data series exactly how CRU did and then the methods to recreate the CRU temperature series, thanks.

Answer 6

Dana talks about CRU throwing away data because they "had no room" for it. And being the person of science that he claims to be, has absolutely no problems with scientists throwing away raw data because it's making a mess on their desk or filling up their filing cabinets. Perhaps he's unfamiliar with terms like "off-site storage" or even "museum".



This is just one issue in a very large book of issues we are being asked to accept regarding man made global warming. It's not the definitive issue nor even perhaps a wholly important one. But it is typical and appears to be systemic in nature. You basically need a whole lot of faith to fully commit to taking action right now on global warming based on what these scientists are saying.