About that Raw Data from the 80s....

I don't mean for this to be a climate change blog in the slightest, nor did I intend to actually update this blog more than one day in a row. But I feel like my previous post here might be well supplemented by addressing a third issue that the skeptics and pundits have raised recently. Namely, the issue of the missing raw data from the 1980s.

This won't be nearly the in depth analysis my previous post was. I haven't found quite as many justifications or explanations for this, nor is there all that much to look into -- the facts are fairly straightforward. And while the climategate business is a clear smear job intended to coincide with the Copenhagen Diagnosis where the accusers are afraid of context, this is harsher and more damaging. But that said, there are a few things we need to keep in mind anyway.


1) The data was dumped in the 1980s, before the mass hysteria toward (and counter-backlash against) global warming. Nobody at that point could have predicted the subsequent political contention over climate change -- and if they had, perhaps they might have made efforts to preserve the data. I guess the conspiracy theorists won't be too convinced by the timing, but it's a little hard to claim malicious intent with a straight face.

2) We live in the age of cheap terabytes. It's easy to forget that this was not always the case. Back when storage was expensive and unwieldy, all sorts of companies and organizations were forced to ditch old data. Any fan of Doctor Who can tell you this. And if the BBC couldn't afford to keep a comprehensive archive, do you really think a group of climatologists relying on grant money could?

3) I feel like the public (read: the pundits) are overemphasizing the importance of "raw data," and, likewise, the scientists aren't doing themselves any favors by referring to what they kept as "value-added data." Do people seriously think that the scientists sat around and added a few degrees to each data set and then deleted the originals to fleece the public? Don't answer that. Anyhow, here is a link to an article by Thomas C. Peterson and Russell S. Vose for the American Meteorological Society that discusses adjustments they make to their own temperature data. I'll pull a quote from the ninth page (2844 in the journal):

"Most long-term climate stations have undergone changes that make a time series of their observations homogeneous. There are many causes for the discontinuities, including changes in instruments, shelters, the environment around the shelter, the location of the station, the time of observation, and the method used to calculate mean temperature. Often several of these occur at the same time, as is often the case with the introduction of automatic weather stations that is occurring in many parts of the world."

Raw data simply isn't all that helpful. You have to account for quite a few variables in order to get accurate numbers -- it's not simply a matter of holding a thermometer up in the air.

Now then, would everything have been better if they had held onto the raw data? Of course. It would keep the skeptics and sticklers a chance to double check the numbers. But I get the sense that the desire to confirm the scientists' math has less to do with scientific interests and more to do with political motivations. Again, this is the case of something that sounds damning, but isn't quite so bad when you actually examine it. I'll give the skeptics one thing though, that this does sound a little scary when you first hear it. I'm actually a little surprised that they're focusing more on the email shtick. But I suppose I don't want to give anybody any ideas.