Over at Climate Audit there is renewed interest in data availability with McIntyre asking whether journals that don’t guarantee data archiving (The Holocene in this case) should be cited in IPCC reports.
It happened that yesterday Phil Jones of CRU gave a talk at KNMI in De Bilt, The Netherlands, where he also talked about availability of data, in this case the data behind the recently published Crutem4 and Hadcrut4 graphs. The talk itself was pretty neutral, just explaining what had been done to produce these two datasets. However at the end Jones made a statement that is relevant to the long lasting discussions about data availability:
For raw temperature data you have to contact the NMS’s.
NMS’s stands for National Meteorological Services, like the Met Office in the UK or KNMI in The Netherlands. The good news is, as we can also read in his latest Crutem4 paper, that CRU will make all data available. However the bad news is that these data have already been homogenized by the NMS’s and the original data are not available at the Crutem4 webpage.
Jones explained that he and Moberg concluded already in 2003 that the homogenisation of temperature data is best done at the NMS’s. So for Crutem4 whenever possible they used these homogenized data of the NMS’s directly, as can be seen at their webpage.
Now in itself this is a fair approach. If the NMS’s cannot figure out what happened with their stations in the past and how best to control for station moves and instrument changes who else can?
…
We know that in some countries adjustments to raw data determine a large part of the trend. In New Zealand sceptics fight (see also here) with NIWA (the NMS of New Zealand) over the adjustments made to the raw data. The temperature trend in the raw data is only 0,3 degrees per century while the adjusted data show a trend of 1 degree per century. Jones uses the adjusted NIWA data in Crutem4. Later this year the High Court in New Zealand will consider this case.
Jones seemed satisfied with the new situation. Anyone asking him for the raw data in the future will be referred to the NMS’s.
================================================================
Anthony: This is particularly worrisome, because as we’ve seen, metadata for GHCN global stations is very poor to virtually non-existent, and from what we know, GHCN and CRU takes very little metadata into account. While the NMS’s may have a better handle on metadata, given the disparity of quality of met services globally, this pretty much ensures that no individual researcher is going to get their hands on a complete set of all data. Phil Jones is essentially blowing off the issue saying “let them figure it out, not our responsibility”. Whatta guy!
================================================================
Crok continues:
In his future answers to sceptics asking for data he can almost copy this paragraph of Joelle Gergis blowing off McIntyre when he requested some tree ring data from her:
This list allows any researcher who wants to access non publically available records to follow the appropriate protocol of contacting the original authors to obtain the necessary permission to use the record, take the time needed to process the data into a format suitable for data analysis etc, just as we have done. This is commonly referred to as ‘research’.
In the case of Crutem4 the raw data in many cases is also not publicly available and anyone interested has to contact each of the NMS’s trying to get these data. There is no guarantee at all that they will release the data.
Now although Jones was very obstructive to data requests from sceptics in the past, I don’t say that Jones is to blame for the current situation. At least he tried to get permission from the NMS’s to release the data as he promised in this Nature article in 2009, which was also covered in several Climate Audit posts (see here for example). In the Nature article Jones said:
“We’re trying to make them all available,” says Jones. “We’re consulting with all the meteorological services — about 150 members [of the World Meteorological Organization] — and will ask them if they are happy to release the data.” A spokesperson for the Met Office confirmed this, saying “we are happy for CRU to take the lead on this, as they are their data”.
But getting the all-clear from other nations won’t be without its challenges, says Jones, who estimates that it could take several months. In addition, some nations may object if they make money by selling their wind, sunshine and precipitation data.
In his new paper on Crutem4 he reports back on this attempt:
In November 2009, the UK Met Office wrote on our behalf to all NMSs to determine if we could release the versions of their monthly temperature series that we held. Of the about 180 letters, we received 62 positive replies, 5 negative replies, and the remainder did not reply.
These results are worrisome in itself. Almost two-thirds of the NMS’s didn’t even bother to answer to a request concerning one of the most important climate graphs in the world. For these countries Crutem4 uses the GHCN data.
===============================================================
The need for a journal that demands all data, (used and excluded) up front, along with methodology, code, and supplementary material to ensure the work is reproducible, before even considering a paper for review is becoming clearly obvious. – Anthony
h/t to Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There’s real science and then there’s ‘climate science’.
Two completely different rules and practices.
Peter Miller
I would argue that the use of Climate and Science in a sentence is definitionally not possible.
Without the raw data being available to all, no reliance can be placed on any conclusion drawn from any study using the unavailable data,
End of story.
“Jones explained that he and Moberg concluded already in 2003 that the homogenisation of temperature data is best done at the NMS’s.”
Once again it should be recalled what the homogenizations are. These are primarily techniques for fully restoring the effect of disturbances on trends. Thanks to stations move, raw series are indeed partially cleared of that.
“Now in itself this is a fair approach. If the NMS’s cannot figure out what happened with their stations in the past and how best to control for station moves and instrument changes who else can?”
Well, the various NMSes have themselves come up with several different and evolving approaches to determining adjusted data -without- knowing systematic and detailed station moves and instrument change data.
Preventing the non-governmental scientists from accessing the raw data can then be reasonably assumed to inhibit yet-more methods of interpretation. Which is a key part in how you realize ‘Hey, that method is better.’
I’ve never read, seen or heard anything from Dr. Phil Jones that shows him anything but a team player. I think this is a weasel move.
Why do they fear FOI?
@ur momisugly Peter Smith
I’d ammend that to: there’s science and there’s politics. The doomsayers have been around since the begining of human existence, and their goal has never been the advancement of knowledge, and has always been the advancement of an agenda. The agenda usually consists of, “Give us more money and more power and we will wave our magic wands and make all your troubles go away.” Climate Science is just politics. They apparently follow few if any of the rules and practices associated with traditional scientific inquiry, and follow all the rules of the game of politics. Might as well call a spade a spade. Michael Mann and his ilk need not even do any more research, all they have to do is decide which conclusion they want and put it on the ballot. If people vote for it, it must be true!
Without verifiable data, all published theories and conclusions are in essence useless as the burden of proof for their validity is on the author and not met. Nobody should as much as buy a pack of gum based on them.
I don’t know. We all dump on climate science, but I have heard some disgruntled grumbling from other fields that journals are not doing a good job of making sure the work covered in the articles is reproducible. I think the problems may be systemic in the sciences right now and that has me worried. Of course the only places that I see wild claims bandied about are climate and medicine, but what if some of the other articles that seem to be noncontroversial are based on just as bad analysis methods, but because the conclusions seemed within experience we never questioned them? I don’t know. I hope other researchers have more integrity than what has been on display by some in climate though, because in the end, displays of integrity are all that will save science in the eyes of the public.
Homogenization prevents the contents of the mix from rising to the top.
This position liberates them from using any reliable source at all. The reports are unquestionable, the methods beyond reproduction. This is Phil Jones saying “trust me – you have no choice, actually”. Wrong guy for the job, wrong institution for the responsibility. Pull the plug.
What an utter crock! The absence of readily being able to undertake repeatability stinks, if this is truly the case. It’s an absolute ‘red flag’. I simply fail to comprehend how climate ‘science’ organises its affairs. How do these folk sleep at night?
In my branch of science, one usually welcomes such requests as both an opportunity to promote one’s ‘important’ findings and to demonstrate the ‘elegance’ of one’s method. One always goes to publication ready to provide such things upon request.
Does anyone know the status of the FOI request from U of Penn/Mann? Here’s to hoping that they reveal some really horrifying behavior on the parts of “Team”. It seems to me that these guys are always “weasling” when it comes to the release of all data. A comuppance would seem in order.
TB
Chuck Nolan says:
June 1, 2012 at 1:35 pm
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2007-10-31/
Climate science is an oxymoron. It is better described as climastrology.
The letter from Professor P Jones to the Swedish “Met Office” was written as to ensure a negative response:
Can we publish your data ? Please note that we may have homogenized it, so it will probably be quite different from your records!.
Not surprisingly, the answer was: No, you must not publish such data as ours.
At that time, it was important for CRU to have such a non-permission because that was what they have said.
http://www.theclimatescam.se/2010/03/06/phil-jones-och-smhis-temperaturdata/
Swedish site. Relevant letters in english.
Shows Professor P Jones: “At least he tried to get permission.. ” Not so – he tried hard to get a NO.
Climate science is oxymoronic!
I completely agree with the need for a new journal requiring total transparency. Dr Felicity Mellor during a talk at the BBC, of all places, suggested that anonymous peer review reports should be made available also, partly to help journalists appreciate any inherent weaknesses in a paper and perhaps as a disincentive to pal review.
Metadata and raw data together with homogenised data from National Meteorological Services should ideally be sent to a central digital repository, available over the internet to anyone, free of charge. Although I distrust the UN, the World Meteorological Association have published a good report on ‘guidelines on climate data and homogenization’:
“When data are quality controlled and/or homogenized, it is always important to document the procedures applied in the metadata. When transmitting a dataset it is desirable to provide both the original and the adjusted data. This will be very helpful for other users who may need to apply a different homogenization approach to meet their particular requirements.
“To recap, homogenization is a difficult but unavoidable task. By properly adjusting a station or dataset we gain a better understanding of climate and especially of climate variability and change.”
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/wcdmp_series/documents/WCDMP-53.pdf
If the CRU can acquire and analyse the data then anyone else can too. The fact that we now have numerous global temperature series which all agree very closely doesn’t mean that other teams can’t do their own research and potentially come to different conclusions, so I don’t see that there’s a problem.
REPLY: Go ahead then and try, see how far you get trying to get the base temperature and the base metadata rather than all of the “adjusted value added” products. Let us know how it goes – Anthony
Anthony: This is particularly worrisome, because as we’ve seen, metadata for GHCN global stations is very poor to virtually non-existent, …. Phil Jones is essentially blowing off the issue saying “let them figure it out, not our responsibility”.
I agree this is very worrisome. What CRU and Phil Jones is saying is that “our work will be a big part of global environmental policy, but do not hold us accountable for the raw data.” Meanwhile, the NMS’s can say “we aren’t responsible for policy, so go fish!”
However, I think this is “too clever by half”. At least in some countries there are Inspectors General that can throw a monkey-wrench into the works if such shenanigans come to light and focus.
This is a time for a well-crafted “elevator speech” that can capture the attention of honest politicians and a distracted public being hoodwinked.
REPLY: Go ahead then and try, see how far you get trying to get the base temperature and the base metadata rather than all of the “adjusted value added” products. Let us know how it goes – Anthony
Nothing galls me more than the image of dutiful data collectors in the 1930s squinting at 0.05°F plus minus day after day having their direct calibrated observations adjusted upwards to account for UHI effects in the 1990s.
Owen in GA says:
June 1, 2012 at 2:09 pm
I don’t know. We all dump on climate science, but I have heard some disgruntled grumbling from other fields that journals are not doing a good job of making sure the work covered in the articles is reproducible. I think the problems may be systemic in the sciences right now and that has me worried.
_____________________________
BINGO!
The problem has metatasized to most fields in science. Science is getting a black eye and it is fully justified.
How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data
72% questionable research practices and 14% out right misconduct does not say much for the holier than thou attitude of these research scientists now does it?
As far as I am concerned THAT study should be sent to every politician and every scientist with a note that say “SHOW ME YOUR DATA or we must assume you are lying”
At this point that is they only attitude an intelligent person can take.
You already know the Warmistas’ excuse here:
We won’t have any time for our science if we’re doing nothing but handling an avalanche of harassing requests for data, code, or procedures.
After all, we have a world to save and those darned skeptics are slowing us down!
Instead of all these attempts to adjust the data, why not just adjust the confidence intervals? Of course this wouldn’t show the warming which they would never admit to. Doing magic adjustments that assume you know what the values are is ridiculous. Without a way of knowing the actual value you need to adjust the data you’re just guessing. That way you could give an honest assessment of the temps taking into account siting, moves and coverage without the fudge factors.