4 ms·

Links to climate data, codes, model outputs, reconstructions, paleo-records, ...

24 points by finin 17y ago

pierrefar 17y ago
This is the best way science should respond to skeptics: make all the data open and easily accessible for anyone to have a look through and critique. Well done RC.
- dantheman 17y ago
  Except they're not making all the data open...
- vixen99 17y ago
  'Science' versus skeptics' is it? Really? Evidently you haven't been paying attention over the past couple of weeks.
  - pierrefar 17y ago
    To me the heart of the current battle isn't scientist vs skeptics who I define as people that will never change their minds regardless of any weight of evidence. Sure not all data is 100% solid, and sure scientists make mistakes, but at the end of the day, we have more than enough data to be convinced about human-caused climate change. Skeptics are people who disagree blindly and jump at slips as problem with the whole of climate change; this mentality ignores the rest of a substantial number of datasets. So yes, science vs skeptics it is.
    - NikkiA 17y ago
      Most of us that are angry over this issue, are NOT blind skeptics. Personally, I have doubts over AGW, that's not to say I think it's all bullshit, but I have my doubts over some of the claims made, and want to see an open and responsible approach to models, data and results. I am continually angered at being called a 'denier' or 'anti-warmer' just because I don't buy the whole belief system 100%. Do I think climate change is a serious issue? Yes, Do I think that we'd all be better if we cut back on CO2 emissions? Of course. Do I think that corporations should be held accountable for their effect on the environment? Damned right. Do I think that that there are no other causes? I'm not sure. Apparently, that makes me a loon, a non-scientist, someone who can't think, a paid shill for the oil industry, a religious fanatic and a rightwing nutjob.
      - pierrefar 17y ago
        No one said you're a loon or a shill. This kind of Dawkins-like extremism and arrogance has no place in science. I apologize if my comment came across that way. In my view, there is enough evidence right now that the cause of the currently observed climate change is human caused, specifically, due to our massive increase in CO2 production. This evidence comes from multiple independent sources (ice cores, tree rings, satellites) that all point in the same general direction. There isn't any alternative reasonable explanation on the table right now, one that explains all the observations. What other causes do you think there are?
- InclinedPlane 17y ago
  Yes, it is. But it does a disservice to science by putting "skeptics" outside the wire. Science is skeptics. Science is the relentless asking of the questions "why?" and "how?" Science is what's left when the dross of human fallibility and uncritical thinking is boiled away in the cauldron of intense public scrutiny of underlying data. This isn't the "best" way that scientists should respond to skeptics, it's the only way that a true scientist can respond. Anything else is just playing at science, dressing up opinion as theory, or argument from authority.
ramanujan 17y ago
Unfortunately, this link does not include the raw CRU data which is at the heart of the debate. It is a repost of old data, which you can figure out by reading the comments section of this post (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/wheres-the-data/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/wheres...). This is disappointing. The University of East Anglia keeps talking about needing "permission" from national metrological service partners before releasing the data, but that should have been obtained before the first publication appeared. You couldn't pull this secret data thing in genomics, for example. Overall this appears to be an attempt at damage control, to get the issue out of the news. Yet those other "5%" of stations are critical for establishing the global trend. They should not have published without them. http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=17333&channel=0&title=University+to+publish+all+climate+data http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=17333&channel... Quote: The university has confirmed it will make all the data accessible as soon as it us released from a range of non-publication agreements, publication will be carried out in collaboration with the Met Office Hadley Centre. "We are grateful for the necessary support of the Met Office in requesting the permissions for releasing the information but understand that responses may take several months and that some countries may refuse permission due to the economic value of the data," continued Professor Davies. "The remaining data, to be published when permissions are given, generally cover areas of the world where there are fewer data collection stations."
- Joeboy 17y ago
  Last I heard they'd abandoned the raw data at some point in the '80s during an office move. Which is obviously less than ideal with hindsight but doesn't strike me as suspicious, as some seem to be suggesting. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article693...
  - InclinedPlane 17y ago
    Losing data is rather suspicious when your private conversations include many direct mentions of how you would prefer to delete data rather than give it up to your opponents.

24 points by finin 17y ago

This is the best way science should respond to skeptics: make all the data open and easily accessible for anyone to have a look through and critique. Well done RC.

dantheman 17y ago
Except they're not making all the data open...
vixen99 17y ago
'Science' versus skeptics' is it? Really? Evidently you haven't been paying attention over the past couple of weeks.
- pierrefar 17y ago
  To me the heart of the current battle isn't scientist vs skeptics who I define as people that will never change their minds regardless of any weight of evidence. Sure not all data is 100% solid, and sure scientists make mistakes, but at the end of the day, we have more than enough data to be convinced about human-caused climate change. Skeptics are people who disagree blindly and jump at slips as problem with the whole of climate change; this mentality ignores the rest of a substantial number of datasets. So yes, science vs skeptics it is.
  - NikkiA 17y ago
    Most of us that are angry over this issue, are NOT blind skeptics. Personally, I have doubts over AGW, that's not to say I think it's all bullshit, but I have my doubts over some of the claims made, and want to see an open and responsible approach to models, data and results. I am continually angered at being called a 'denier' or 'anti-warmer' just because I don't buy the whole belief system 100%. Do I think climate change is a serious issue? Yes, Do I think that we'd all be better if we cut back on CO2 emissions? Of course. Do I think that corporations should be held accountable for their effect on the environment? Damned right. Do I think that that there are no other causes? I'm not sure. Apparently, that makes me a loon, a non-scientist, someone who can't think, a paid shill for the oil industry, a religious fanatic and a rightwing nutjob.
    - pierrefar 17y ago
      No one said you're a loon or a shill. This kind of Dawkins-like extremism and arrogance has no place in science. I apologize if my comment came across that way. In my view, there is enough evidence right now that the cause of the currently observed climate change is human caused, specifically, due to our massive increase in CO2 production. This evidence comes from multiple independent sources (ice cores, tree rings, satellites) that all point in the same general direction. There isn't any alternative reasonable explanation on the table right now, one that explains all the observations. What other causes do you think there are?
InclinedPlane 17y ago
Yes, it is. But it does a disservice to science by putting "skeptics" outside the wire. Science is skeptics. Science is the relentless asking of the questions "why?" and "how?" Science is what's left when the dross of human fallibility and uncritical thinking is boiled away in the cauldron of intense public scrutiny of underlying data. This isn't the "best" way that scientists should respond to skeptics, it's the only way that a true scientist can respond. Anything else is just playing at science, dressing up opinion as theory, or argument from authority.

ramanujan 17y ago

Unfortunately, this link does not include the raw CRU data which is at the heart of the debate. It is a repost of old data, which you can figure out by reading the comments section of this post (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/wheres-the-data/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/wheres...). This is disappointing. The University of East Anglia keeps talking about needing "permission" from national metrological service partners before releasing the data, but that should have been obtained before the first publication appeared. You couldn't pull this secret data thing in genomics, for example. Overall this appears to be an attempt at damage control, to get the issue out of the news. Yet those other "5%" of stations are critical for establishing the global trend. They should not have published without them. http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=17333&channel=0&title=University+to+publish+all+climate+data http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=17333&channel... Quote: The university has confirmed it will make all the data accessible as soon as it us released from a range of non-publication agreements, publication will be carried out in collaboration with the Met Office Hadley Centre. "We are grateful for the necessary support of the Met Office in requesting the permissions for releasing the information but understand that responses may take several months and that some countries may refuse permission due to the economic value of the data," continued Professor Davies. "The remaining data, to be published when permissions are given, generally cover areas of the world where there are fewer data collection stations."

Joeboy 17y ago
Last I heard they'd abandoned the raw data at some point in the '80s during an office move. Which is obviously less than ideal with hindsight but doesn't strike me as suspicious, as some seem to be suggesting. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article693...
- InclinedPlane 17y ago
  Losing data is rather suspicious when your private conversations include many direct mentions of how you would prefer to delete data rather than give it up to your opponents.