The Goat ate the Data

Back before Climategate even began Dr. Phil Jones at one point stated that the CRU had “lost” the “raw” data they had collected during the move into their new building back in the 1980’s. This spawned the story the “Dog ate the Data” across the Blogosphere and turned up again when Climategate broke. At that time a New Zealand group called the  New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) looked at the raw temperature records for their country and found that the temperatures were flat and that the warming trend shown in the graphs published by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) was all due to adjustments NIWA did. At that time a FOI request was put in to see why and when these “adjustments” were made. Now two months later the NZCSC states that NIWA has been forced to admit they lost the records of how and when the adjustments were made.  You can get the details and the NZCSC press release here:

TBR.cc: BREAKING NEWS: NIWA reveals NZ original climate data missing.

What makes this story even more interesting is that until this year (April) the head of NIWA was a Dr. Jim Salinger who was let go by NIWA for repeatedly violating NIWA policy.

http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/2009/niwa-welcomes-jim-salinger-employment-decision

 The interesting thing about Dr. Salinger is that prior to going to work for NIWA he was a member of Dr. Joneses CRU and he appears in the Climategate emails. Strange how data goes missing where ever these CRU boys work.

Advertisements

6 responses to “The Goat ate the Data

  1. Pingback: Is Chiefio onto something? « TWAWKI

  2. Harold Vance February 1, 2010 at 7:35 pm

    CRU is to data what anti-matter is to matter.

    That’s appalling. Does NIWA still have their code (that they used to adjust the data)? Or did they happen to lose both the code and the documentation?

  3. Ken February 2, 2010 at 11:31 pm

    This article is a scam. NZ scientists published their methodologies in 1993. Have a look at the paper: Adjustment of temperature and rainfall records for site changes

    They aren’t required to keep all the filter papers and envelope backs used in calculations.

  4. boballab February 3, 2010 at 12:12 am

    @3

    You made two of the most common mistakes in this whole debate. You pointed to an article that outlines a method to make changes to temperature records, however that article doesn’t:

    1. Prove that was the changes actually made to the temperature records.

    The National Climatatic Data Center in the US back in December ran into a similar problem with the changes they did to the ‘raw’ data from Darwin Australia. They pointed to the four papers that outline the methods that are supposed to be used to “fix” the data. However there was a problem: The actual changes didn’t match what the papers said were suppose to be done and NCDC didn’t know why and has even admitted that there was problems in the way they made the changes and was redoing the entire GHCN dataset with a new method. So all you pointed to was what was supposed to have been done, not what was actually done. The only way to prove what was done is to actually show what was done.

    2. There is more then one method to “fix” the “raw” temperature data and they give different results. NASA GISS uses what they call the “reference station method” outlined in the paper Hansen et al 1999

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_etal.pdf

    Then there is the “First Difference Method” that NCDC used until recently based on the paper by Dr Peterson(Peterson et al., JGR 1998)

    Then there is the “Anomaly Method” based on the work of Phil Jones (Jones et al. [1982, 1985, 1997a]).

    So you tell me which method is the “correct” method since they all can’t be right since they all come up with different numbers for what the corrected “temperature” is.

  5. Ken February 3, 2010 at 1:33 am

    Are you suggesting that NIWA didn’t use the method oulined in the paper? If so please give your evidence.

    My point is that claims that calculation and methodolgy had been lostv are just silly. We don’t keep ever scrap of paper and when data is on computer and the methodolgy published we actually do have a permanent record.

    This is a typical “when are you going to stop beating your wife” charge made by people whose own attempt to present this data was a real balls up and has been discredited . 

    Sent from my iPod

  6. Bisnort February 7, 2014 at 7:02 pm

    Ken, if your climate scientists are doing their important calculations on filter paper, we have a problem.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: