On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 00:06 -0800, Gar Lipow wrote: > OK, but the whole "not revealing data" thing is part of a larger IP > problem. That is the whole artificial creation of intellectual > property has huge implications for scientific work. In this case much > of the data climate scientists use is the intellectual property of > somebody, which means they gain access to it on condition they keep it > confidential. That is a fairly serious problem, but it is not limited > to climate science. And fortunately much of the modeling is based on > public data, including everything that NASA does.
"somebody" here is often the government of some country, USA data is mostly open due to non copyright of government work but that's not the case unfortunately of other countries data. BTW is there some known dataset which is 100% private? > I will note that > critics of AGW have yet to generate any valid public criticism based > on the public data they have access to. Some of McIntyre criticism as been acknowledged as valid by "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (2006)" Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (BASC), so what you say here is simply not true. > The lab broken into bases > their research on 98% public data, and 2% purchased data they are > legally obliged to keep confidential. If you wish,discard all the work > they have done and stick to the work done by other labs. You won't > find substantially different results. I don't think their work is > discredited, but if you do there is plenty out there not > "contaminated". I have seen this 98%/2% claim a few times but without any backing to date. Sometimes 2% can be significant depending on how you weight, fake made up example: "98% of the volume of data is likely 1900-now and 2% before 1900" which is more relevant? If you have an URL of a more in depth analysis, I'm interested. Also another quote from Judith Curry : http://www.a-w-i-p.com/index.php/2009/11/24/on-the-credibility-of-climate-research << The HADCRU surface climate dataset and the paleoclimate dataset that has gone into the various “hockeystick” analyses stand out as lacking such transparency. Much of the paleoclimate data and metadata has become available only because of continued public pressure from Steve McIntyre. Datasets that were processed and developed decades ago and that are now regarded as essential elements of the climate data record often contain elements whose raw data or metadata were not preserved (this appears to be the case with HADCRUT). The HADCRU surface climate dataset needs public documentation that details the time period and location of individual station measurements used in the data set, statistical adjustments to the data, how the data were analyzed to produce the climatology, and what measurements were omitted and why. If these data and metadata are unavailable, I would argue that the data set needs to be reprocessed (presumably the original raw data is available from the original sources). Climate data sets should be regularly reprocessed as new data becomes available and analysis methods improve. There are a number of aspects of the surface climate record that need to be understood better. For example, the surface temperature bump ca. 1940 needs to be sorted out, and I am personally lacking confidence in how this period is being treated in the HADCRUT analysis. >> On HADCRU I found this: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/ClimateData.htm Possible coincidence with the Reagan era but that might be off topic :) Laurent PS: on my blog, mostly linking to english articles http://guerby.org/blog/index.php/2009/11/27/209-climat-science-et-transparence _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
