[Vision2020] Realclimate.org: Data Links, Source Page, etc., "Dissent:" "Where's the Data?"

[Paul Rumelhart]

Ted Moffett wrote:
> I have repeatedly read commentary by "skeptics" (I think this word to 
> describe those who raise serious doubts about the science behind the 
> claim that humans are altering climate is unfortunate, because all 
> scientists are skeptics by training, or should be), both by PhDs and 
> those of more modest education, who have posted directly to this 
> list.  Often Realclimate.org scientists will comment on, quote and 
> offer references to notable "dissenting" content appearing on other 
> websites, in the world of science publishing, or in the media or 
> books.  If fact, Realclimate.org is a valuable resource to research 
> the most compelling "dissenting" views on climate change.

I don't read realclimate.org, but I'm happy to hear that they allow 
dissenting views to be posted on their site.  As for terminology, I 
don't particularly care how you choose to classify me.  I like to think 
I'm skeptical, and unless you can see into my head, you'll just have to 
take my word that I am truly skeptical about this.  Perhaps 
"unconvinced" would be a better description.  As for my education level, 
I have a B.S. in Computer Science, and a B.S. in Mathematics.  Both from 
the fair institution that is this towns largest employer.  Not that it 
matters with relation to global warming, but there you go.

It does make me hopeful that I'll get farther in my quest to produce 
various global temperature graphs I've been working on over time, though 
I see that others have already done something of the sort.  Oh well, 
maybe a new take on it will be useful.  If not, it's been a useful 
exercise.  Programmers need to keep their tools sharp.

>  
> The discussion below, "Where's the Data?" expresses "dissent" in 
> numerous posted comments, along with offering access to "data links to 
> sources of temperature and other climate data, codes to process it, 
> model outputs, model codes, reconstructions, paleo-records, the codes 
> involved in reconstructions etc."

I'm happy to see that calls for public access to data are being heeded.  
This can only help everyone.  Perhaps someday the issue will become more 
obviously settled and I can join the ranks of the believers - assuming 
it doesn't become settled in the opposite direction.

>  
> I will paste in only the beginning commentary and one response in this 
> thread, number 32, that amazed because it reads surprisingly as if it 
> might have been written by a certain Vision2020 participant that 
> appears to have a passionate yet "skeptical" interest in important 
> issues regarding climate change:

I think you'll find that more people than just Mr. O'Connor and I are 
skeptical of the AGW hypothesis and some of the dire conclusions drawn 
from it.  Not steadfastly holding the opposite view, mind you, just 
skeptical.  The best way to convert us, in my opinion, is to open 
everything up on a level playing field with special attention paid to 
data adjustments and climate models.  At this stage, because the very 
idea of abuse of the peer review process has been broached, perhaps some 
kind of open system for examining prospective papers can be found.

At any rate, thank you for the link to the data sources page.  Once I 
finish with charting the NCDC global temp data, I plan to move on to 
their precipitation data and then I'll hit some other global temp data 
source.  Someday I'll throw sunspots, temperature proxies, cosmic rays, 
and carbon dioxide levels in there too, along with various inter-dataset 
comparisons.

Also, in your reading, if you run across an explanation of exactly what 
adjustments were made to the original CRU global temperature data that 
was lost, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Paul

>  
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/wheres-the-data/
>
>
>       Where’s the data?
>
> Filed under:
>
>     * Climate Science
>       <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/>
>
>     * Instrumental Record
>       <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/instrumental-record/>
>
> — group @ 27 November 2009
>
> Much of the discussion in recent days has been motivated by the idea 
> that climate science is somehow unfairly restricting access to raw 
> data upon which scientific conclusions are based. This is a powerful 
> meme and one that has clear resonance far beyond the people who are 
> actually interested in analysing data themselves. However, many of the 
> people raising this issue are not aware of what and how much data is 
> actually available.
>
> Therefore, we have set up a page of data links to sources of 
> temperature and other climate data, codes to process it, model 
> outputs, model codes, reconstructions, paleo-records, the codes 
> involved in reconstructions etc. We have made a start on this on a new 
> Data Sources <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/> 
> page, but if anyone has other links that we’ve missed, note them in 
> the comments and we’ll update accordingly.
>
> The climate science community fully understands how important it is 
> that data sources are made as open and transparent as possible, for 
> research purposes as well as for other interested parties, and is 
> actively working to increase accessibility and usability of the data. 
> We encourage people to investigate the various graphical portals to 
> get a feel for the data and what can be done with it. The providers of 
> these online resources are very interested in getting feedback on any 
> of these sites and so don’t hesitate to contact them if you want to 
> see improvements.
>
> *Update:* Big thank you to all for all the additional links given 
> below. Keep them coming!
>
> Comments (pop-up) (205) <http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=1994>
>
> -------------------------------------
>
> 32
> John O'Connor says:
> 28 November 2009 at 3:55 AM 
> <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/wheres-the-data/comment-page-1/#comment-145212>
>
> Gavin,
>
> Calling it a powerful meme still sounds like you are in the denial stages.
>
> It may be that the e-mails have been hacked “illegally” as you put it 
> – much in the same way that the UK Parliamentary expenses were “stolen 
> and leaked”. The reaction there was that Michael Martin instituted a 
> police enquiry and eventually he became the first Speaker of the House 
> to be forced out of office for 300 years.
>
> The e-mail chain reveals a disturbing pattern of obfuscation etc. etc. 
> instead of opennesss. Coupled with patters in a major media 
> organisation here that seems to want to push only one argument and stream.
>
> Personally I have a background in engineering with two Masters behind 
> me – one involving computer simulation of a very simple eletrical 
> system. I have 25+ years systems and software engineering experience, 
> and enough wit to know how difficult it is to model any sort of 
> physical system.
>
> The science of modelling is a really complex field that I don’t have 
> the bandwidth to fully understand (day job and family commitments 
> too), but I do have an interest in it, and a very natural suspicion 
> when I am told to simply trust models etc. etc. A very useful 
> suspicion that has served me well professionally in the software 
> industry in assisting to build and work on various parts of system 
> reliability etc.
>
> There has been far too much “the science is settled – trust us – we 
> are the ones to trust”. In fact – it sounds rather like another 
> religious institution in Ireland that has just got a well deserved 
> pasting for what was actually very serious criminal activity. I’m not 
> putting you guys in the same category as the irish bishops – but just 
> to say, the manner of your communication has very similar patterns to 
> their way of handling a serious issue.
>
> Sorry if this has rambled over a number of different thoughts.
>
> It is a very important topic, and you need to do justice to legitimate 
> concerns from various fields that might not all be attached to or paid 
> for by big oil !!!!!
>
> ---------------------------------
> Vision2020 Ted Moffett
>  
>  
>  
>