

Links to climate data, codes, model outputs, reconstructions, paleo-records, ... - finin
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

======
ramanujan
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...](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/wheres-
the-data/)).

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...](http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=17333&channel=0&title=University+to+publish+all+climate+data)

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."

~~~
ramanujan
By the way, also note that if permissions are truly being refused because of
the "economic value of the data", then the fact that this data is unavailable
is quite _significant_. No one would put up a fight over releasing
insignificant data, so there must be some unique and critical information
there. Hence this is _not_ a fuss over nothing.

(by the by, the thing that pisses me off so much about this as a scientist is
that data hiding is a direct assault on reproducibility. I can understand a
company keeping some secret sauce to themselves -- no one expects Google to
open source GFS. But the whole point of putting out a paper is so that the
community of scholars can build on it.)

~~~
Joeboy
> if permissions are truly being refused because of the "economic value of the
> data", then the fact that this data is unavailable is quite significant. No
> one would put up a fight over releasing insignificant data

Its significance is that the people who supply the data can continue charging
for it and are able to continue collecting data without being bankrupted.

(Edit: how are you supposed to quote text on Hacker news?)

~~~
ramanujan
My understanding is that these are national services, i.e. government run and
publicly financed. This is only my understanding -- to the best of my
knowledge CRU has not actually responded to inquiries for exactly which
countries and services are involved (so even that is secret).

In any case we should surely be able to pay for the data to be publicly
accessible if it is just a question of money. To upper bound it, let's say
this data is worth a billion dollars. That is still a lot less than estimated
mitigation costs (and is likely a very liberal upper bound!). Whatever it
costs, funds for a public database should be the first line item on any
climate change bill, with NIH-style penalties for failure to deposit
government funded research data.

~~~
Joeboy
I agree with you, although I suspect most of the people criticizing the CRU
aren't going to respond well to the suggestion that an extra billion dollars
is required for climate research.

------
pierrefar
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.

~~~
vixen99
'Science' versus skeptics' is it? Really? Evidently you haven't been paying
attention over the past couple of weeks.

~~~
pierrefar
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
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
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?

