Replies

“So in the mid-80’s, all the data from what time period was destroyed?”

-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—

I have been following this specific issue for quite some time on the heavy, professional, science boards. Many researchers have gotten into the swing of requesting (and being denied) data from East Anglia (CRU).

CRU DID accept and accumulate the data from nations and stations world wide. They did NOT ever gather any information as to the “quality” of that data to begin with. Many countries and stations simply funneled the data collected over to CRU, and have completely depended on CRU to maintain the master database. The data in some cases has been collected for many centuries- since the invention of the thermometer. Other stations collected for only a few decades. Many many stations have been disbanded in the last 15 years, the demise of the USSR... as well as for economic reasons. In some cases that collection station was “moved” instead, and became the “official” record for that area.

What CRU has apparently been doing is the following, though it is speculation as they really are saying very little to anyone. Every time data gets dumped to them, CRU integrates it with the historical data from that area.

For example, a station is “moved”. The two stations running in parallel show some type of clear difference in behavior. CRU has been adjusting the historical data for the whole area according to their new “belief” as to what the new station is telling about the inaccuracies of the previous record. That adjustment may affect not only that specific pair of stations, but other stations as well, in the same area.

They have apparently been completely tossing the historical data, and retaining ONLY the “value-added” data, which has been adjusted according to their secret sauce. They have probably not even kept accurate records of the reasons for adjustments. For many areas of the world, the ONLY records that have been in existence since the 1980’s is the CRU database. All the original paper records and other records were long ago turned over to them for safekeeping.

Many times during the last decade (the period I’ve been following this closely) it has been noted that the “historical” temperatures given by CRU for a given area has been adjusted. I would guess that on average these data releases occur about annually. The odd thing is that the whole track was not simply adjusted up or down, but the shape would change, too. Many skeptics (that means “good scientists” noted this and expressed the why question). In recent years, this question has come more and more and finally has broken through to this point.

My example is only the “value adjustment” for a changed station. Presumably, CRU did adjustment for many other reasons, also. Again, the reasons are by now probably lost to antiquity since they seem now to reside only in the minds of the CRU trustees and employees. All that remains is the “value-adjusted” history.

No good scientist is now confident about anything in the CRU data. We don’t know what stations were used any more, or their quality. We don’t know whether the temperatures were properly adjusted for “urban heat island” effect, or for any other effect for that matter. (Some of the initial queries to CRU were intended to gain a handle on how well their UHI adjustments were done, I believe.) It seems that we may even have lost such simple data as how many stations temperatures were being collected for in the 1980’s versus the number now. We know it is far less now, but no one claims to know the number.

CRU has conglomerated all their raw data into their “value added” temperatures, and we really don’t know anything about the usefulness of the data now. We can collect in various publications over the years certain specific information, for example, the CRU temperature record for the Gold Coast 1880-1985 as seen in a 1989 research paper, and compare it to the G.C. CRU temperature record for 1880-2002 in a 2005 paper. It is clear in such comparisons that the the data from 1880-1985 is wildly different in some cases...

It appears to skeptics like me that the net effect of whatever CRU has done to the data has tended to:
1. Lower older temperatures.
2. Smooth out peaks and valleys.
3. Raise recent temperatures.

I’ve not seen many scientists claiming that there was anything malicious in way CRU’s adjustments were made. They simply are asking what was done, why, and how. Of course it can’t help but become a alarmist vs. skeptics battle for those who have high investment in the CRU record. As the questioning, and now I would even consider that it has become “investigation”, has accelerated, the CRU scientists are increasingly defensive. It now seems clear that they don’t have the raw data anywhere, and indeed that they are now unlikely to have any idea how whatever automated processes they used to “add value” did the adjustments.

A LOT of data was collected by and entrusted to CRU. Some seems to be completely gone now. Scientifically, I have to say that this really is a data disaster. It is even tempting to say something about the Library at Alexandria.